Posted on 07/30/2010 5:19:55 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers dont 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
Original jurisdiction means the power to conduct the trial of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a trial is - you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.
The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:
State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you.
See where it says, State of Arizona? And Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court original Jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
First, thank you for your clarification.
I think the states have to do precisely what Arizona has done, and fight back. While they may have lost - at least partially - round one, there's a long fight ahead. It's my personal opinion that this District Court's judge has cobbled together a feckless opinion that is unlikely to withstand appellate scrutiny, although that's going to take some time.
Plyler v Doe did not cut well for people looking to withhold certain social services for illegal immigrants, especially children of those illegals (like education), BUT the majority opinion also laid out pretty clearly that the states have an rational and constitutionally supported reason to control the influx of illegal immigrants to their states. The Judge completely ignores Plyler, and that will bite her in the ass.
More broadly however, I personally don't think illegal immigration will be solved until such a time when substantive penalties for the people who employ these illegals are enacted and fiercely enforced. If illegals can't get jobs, they'll leave. It's that simple. The GOP is too dependent on big business (and some small businesses) to effect the necessary change, and the Dems aren't going to do anything because they don't want to alienate their fastest growing constituency. The prospects for a long-term and effective federal solution are not encouraging. It's going to be up to each state to drive them away, like Arizona is doing today.
Thanks, I agree with everything you posted.
It is going to be up to the Sates, I hope Jan Brewer hangs in there and continues the fight, our side desperately needs more people like her.
Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement
It is a CRS Report for Congress in 2004
“Conservatism used to be about intellectual excellence and rational superiority”
Conservatism is a set of principles. A set of principles can’t suddenly become irrational or stupid, nor can it write an article that you don’t like.
Good thing you’re not a liberal, otherwise you’d be stuck on the stupidity of judging your ideology based on the behavior and the personalities of other liberals. In other words, on going with the crowd.
The good thing about conservative principles is they are unchanging. If one conservative writes an article that a second conservative doesn’t like, the second one understands the foolishness of criticizing the ideology instead of the individual writer.
I have not read it (yet). In fact, the first I became aware of its existence was from reading Judge Bolton's preliminary injunction. She mentions this report when citing a Justice Alito opinion from Paddilla v. Kentucky. Her reference to it (actually the citation of Alito's reference to it), is used to advance one of her arguments that essentially says, "Immigration is too complicated for AZ police officers to address" - it's a ridiculously weak argument. But, I was interested in what the larger reporter said, especially since she uses it and Alito used it in a prior case. It's one of many things on my "to read" list from that particular injunction which I just haven't had time to get to yet.
These people have a knock for turning common sense on its head trough their legislation, it's very frustrating.
This is a little complicated, but as a technical matter of law, that's correct.
It is illegal to be in the country without proper leave of federal officials, but it may not be a criminal illegality because there isn't a criminal penalty for being here illegally, just a civil penalty.
Now - and here's where it gets complicated - it is plainly illegal AND criminal to enter the country without approval of the federal government vis-a-vis the Border Patrol checkpoints. The US Code prescribes a criminal penalty including imprisonment for crossing someplace other than a predetermined checkpoint, or crossing at a checkpoint under fraudulent circumstances.
The question is - is it a criminal offense if you enter the country legally, but overstay your time as prescribed in your entrance visa? Today, that is not a crime, but a civil violation of the US Code.
Think about Aunt Petunia (or whatever Obama's Aunt is named). She was facing a civil hearing, not a criminal hearing. This wasn't because she was Obama's Aunt, but it was because she entered the country under perfectly legal terms, but overstayed her eligibility per her visa conditions. As such, she was looking at possible deportation and a civil fine - but both are civil penalties, not criminal penalties.
There are literally thousands of illegal acts described in the US Code that actually aren't crimes. For it (an illegal act) to be a criminal illegality, there must be a prescribed statutory criminal penalty, which is described as a misdemeanor or felony.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me.
Maybe we should just adopt Mexico’s immigration laws, seems like it would be a lot easier and their laws make sense!
Made me think of Legally Blond & “...subject jurisdiction...”
Thanks for all your explanation on this thread. Much appreciated. We all have a lot to learn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.