Oops! That's Unconstitutional

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.




The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part,

"Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.

This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ....engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.

This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.

The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.




You can't fix stupid...but you can vote it out.

she makes good arguments.

however when the fed filed in the wrong jurisdiction the state had the opportunity to raise jurisdictional/venue issues up to the time of the ruling and the state did not. so they waived the right. too late to go back and scream about it now. i will try to find a cite.

Well, there you have it... If the "United Patriots of America" says it, it must be true... And OF COURSE the Federal Government will view it as "a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government."

I'm sure they'll see a bunch of undocumented (read: ILLEGAL, because I happen to agree with you about that one issue) aliens as an "invasion by a neighboring country."


(Be vewy, vewy qwiet... You can hear the bwack hewicopters if you listen cwosely.)

You don't mind if I say that it scares me to think that you can agree with me on anything LJ. Maybe I should take the other side of the argument, for safety's sake. Just kidding, can't pass that one up.

There are confirmed reports that our federal agents have been told not to patrol certain areas within our borders because of the high risk that they will be harmed by foreign nationals who are occupying those areas. While perhaps not rising to the level of invasion, it certainly constitutes an incursion over the border and occupation of national territory by citizens of a foreign nation. Pershing needed the assent of the Mexican government when he and his merry men, including one Lt. George Patton who led the first mechanized military action in the nation's history while serving as Pershing's aide on the expedition, entered Mexico to search for Pancho Villa. To the best of my knowledge, our president hasn't given similar permission for Mexican citizens to occupy American soil or conduct operations against this nation's federal border agents in the state of Arizona. I might be wrong on that, but I would be surprised.

There's a difference between criminals, and an armed force under color of military invasion, and you know it... But if it makes you feel better to think you have another outrage-of-the-day to cling to, then rave on...

(Every day I think the wackos on the right can't get any crazier, they surprise me...)

And reconquista is just another word in the Spanish language. Are you familiar with how Texas became an independent nation state? The Americans just keep flooding in until they significantly outnumbered the Mexican citizens living there, took control of its governance and then declared themselves independent of Mexico.

If our federal government isn't prepared to deal harshly with criminals invading one of the sovereign states it is constitutionally responsible for protecting and securing do you really think it's going to be willing to engage in an armed conflict with Mexico if the citizens of Mexico return the favor that they received in Texas?

I'd better get my "1836" flag out of mothballs...

Better go back that United Patriots of America site... You're gonna need some new material.