Explosive new evidence shows ruling of AZ judge illegal

[Twana Blevins]

It's time to stand up to these federal interference judges. They have no constitutional authority to interfere in issues between states gov. and fed. gov. If the fed. gov. has an issue with any state, the only court that is constitutionally set up to mediate is the Supreme Court. All other fed. courts are nothing more than illegitimate thugs legislating from the bench.

Twana Blevins

____________________________________________________________________________

The Examiner

Penned by Anthony Martin

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.

 

(Daniel Bayer/CBS News via Getty Images). The inept U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder.

 

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.

 

Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.

By Anthony Martin

Conservative Examiner

As an original foot-soldier in 'the Reagan Revolution' that led to the election of Ronald Reagan, Anthony G. Martin is no stranger to politics,...

[Lynne Stevens]

I sent it to my state congressmen and senators PLUS the GOV Jan Brewer

[Dave Koch]

  The Superior Court Judge in Denver had no authority to override the 70% of the People of Oklahoma blocking Sharia Laws being introduced in to Ok Laws. Sharia Laws have no place in America's Constitution or in the Laws of America. If this isn't stopped now, we are going to see Holy Hell on our streets as they have seen in many Cities all over the World.

[Robert James Burkholder]

The Judge in Denver was appointed by Obama.He noted in his opinion that our secular Courts do not recognize honor killings and other things allowed by Shariah Law. He is exactly the kind of useful idiot the bloody Muslims hope to find on our Courts.Until they are strong enough to "Slay" everybody that does not convert to Islam.

[Juanita B Padberg]

You are so right!!! This is outrageous, yet we still have the GUN RUNNING Holder suing states, telling them they can do NOTHING when it's NOT TRUE!! The states can say TO HECK WITH HOLDER and protect their borders!!! The States and The People must MAKE A STAND FOR RIGHT!!!

[Denis Parton]

They also pass things like the NDAA,and nobody mentions the fact that they cannot alter any portion of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights without a Constitutional Convention.  This requires Passage by a Super Majority in both Houses of Congress. and Ratification by 75% of the States.  This makes most gun control measures passed by the Federal Govt void, they are unconstitutional. Same with The NDAA, and also many portions of the Patriot Act

[Shane Christiansen]

So as a question can we send a petition to the Supreme Court over the continued violations to the Constitution and get one of these Judges to act? And what about the Judge who ruled in Georgia What is going on with that SUPENA for usurper to appear and show proof of qualification?

[Juanita B Padberg]

If we could find a group of people who TRULY KNOW THE CONSTITUTION,, AND BELIEVE IN IT --- PLUS KNOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM --- THE HAS TO BE SOME LAWYERS OUT THERE SOME WHERE THAT BELIEVE AS WE DO --- that they could guide us in what we can do of what we want to do and are willing to write up the legal papers, that would be needed to get ourselves heard!!! I'm no lawyer, but IN MY HEART I FEEL THERE HAS TO BE A RECOURSE  FOR US FOR ALL THE ILLEGAL THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN AND ARE DOING, AND YET TO TO DO THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT!! 

@Shane court date in GA is the 26th of Jan and OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!!! BHO isn't going to appear, but I'd like to know what the Judge intends to do when they ignore his supena.  Maybe Obama will use NDAA to arrest and hold the Judge w/o due process instead. 

[Robert James Burkholder]

Juanita--maybe I'm just too jaded--and need to stand down--but it's going tro be a long haul-- We were distracted--or

disinterested--or ? --whatever the excuse  this happened. And when you're up to your important parts in alligators does it matter whose bright idea it was to drain the swamp? Until we can vote out the majority of  Congress and replace them with people who understand the Constitution and feel as we do....That will take at least 8 to twelve years minum. Those we send as freshmen we will have to keep on short leash  because foggy bottom seems always to have a corrupting influence. We also need to stay active in those groups that select and vet the candidates. .Most Americans don't have the ambition or the staying power to do this --but I do feel your pain.

[MinutemanCDC_SC]

"Until we can vote out the majority of  Congress and replace them with people who understand the Constitution and feel as we do..."

Robert, that was attempted for years before States Rights and the nullification of Amendments IX and X, and for over a century and a half since.

If you see a viable route to freedom, please show us the way.  The only real freedom I know about is freedom in Jesus Christ, which is very different from being free from slavery to tyrants.

[Shane Christiansen]

Reeducate is the KEY Twana, they haven't thought the constitution or bill of rights in the lower grades for decades. I do believe it is by design.

[MinutemanCDC_SC]

This article assumes that the United States government - executive, legislative, or judicial - complies with the Constitution. But nearly everyone who is not still in school understands that this nation of laws submits to only one law - the law of the jungle, might makes right.

[Lynne Stevens]

I sent this to several Senators of my State of Arizona

Make sure this Anti-American Anti-Arizona fruit cake Senator Steve Gallardo and his repeal SB1070 stuff does not get out of committee ! !  As It is about to be turned loose and able to be fully implemented ! !  As the judge they ( the Open Border Group ) went running to, ( Judge Susan Bolton ) to get a hold put on part of it was not LEGALLY able to do that according to the Constitution Article III Section 2 Clause 2 . . . She should have said "NO I do not have the powers to do what you want, it requires the Supreme Court to make this decision !" 

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a3_2_2.html

Attorney General Eric Holder’s lawsuit was filed against the State of Arizona.  Since Arizona is a State, our Constitution clearly asserts that only our Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this case.  The Constitution of the United States clearly asserts this simple fact,

 “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, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
”Article III, Section 2, Clause 2" And Congress has made NO EXCEPTIONS ! !