o'illegal - Wrong Court Ruled On Arizona Law

From: baja  Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010

The Wrong Court Ruled on Arizona Law!

      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, second clause 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 in legal actions against 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.

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.

      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 directly involving a state, 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.

      If Obama truly wants to 'seize power' in America - his hand has been called - by his own ignorant U.S. Attorney General ignoring the constitution.  What will they do now???

      PRAY for AMERICA!!  Forward for others to pray about a crisis that could erupt in riots in the streets....

      Read it yourself (III.2. second clause) at:  http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

---