Wrong Court ruled on Arizona Law

Googled search on Before It's News ^ | September 8, 2010

[GracieB]

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.

[vaudine]

With this arrogant administration's contempt for the Constitution, I doubt this will cause even a ripple. It should! But will it?

vaudine

[pissant]

Damn, I hope this works out.

[alancarp]

Freepers have been pointing this out for a couple of weeks now, at least. Why’s this such a revelation?

[muawiyah]

You have to know what the words really mean ~ one popular interpretation is that once a federal judiciary was in place, cases could be assigned to district courts for first review ~ which has a legal name I can't quite recall this time of day ~ oh, darned! First Impression? Is that it?

Besides, the parties are playing a political game ~ and want this to be an issue in the election 54 days away.

The Obamistas assume this will stir up their side to go vote against the evil Republicans. The Republicans assume this will stir up their side to go vote against the Democrat reprobates and child molesters.

All is good !

[MamaB]

It is the first time I have seen anything about this.

[GracieB]

This was the first time I saw anything about this, also. My apologies. I have come to find this which explains why it is being allowed. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

[TigersEye]

Our country is just full of Constitutional scallops these days.

(I don't mean the woman who is challenging the court's standing here.)

I believe this point has been brought up on FR but I don't recall who or what thread.

[BobP]

With this arrogant administration's contempt for the Constitution, I doubt this will cause even a ripple. It should! But will it?

------------------------------------

Nothing says anarchy quite like a ruling elite that decides on its whim whether to prosecute the laws as written. And then, only to protect some of the people that it favors.

[Steelers6]

So that means Holder has to file with the Supreme Court to sue Arizona and they are not in session till October. Does the other ruling stand until then or is it wiped away immediately and therefore the law goes into affect?

I’m sure they will have at least 4 Justices agree to take the case. Kagen, Sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsberg without a doubt will sign on.

[Defiant]

Article written by someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Plenty has been written explaining the distinction between “jurisdiction” and “exclusive jursidiction”. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear it, but so do the district courts, and the Supreme Court will never take it until it works its way through the normal process.

[An.American.Expatriate]

IIRC the District Courts were created by the First Congress to relieve the Supreme Court of being a trial court and are more or less subordinate bodies of the Supreme Court.

That said, USC TITLE 28, PART IV, CHAPTER 81,§ 1251 states that the Supreme Court has Original - but NOT exclusive - jurisdiction in such matters.

USC TITLE 28, PART IV, CHAPTER 85, § 1345 gives shared jurisdiction to the District Courts.

So this is likely much ado about nothing ....

[Publius6961]

This is old news, by about a month.
As I recall, the DOJ response was the citing of some old law (Not a Constitutional Amendment,) which granted exceptions to the Federal government to ignore "Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2..."

And the issue then quietly faded.

[Publius6961]

Article written by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Or, alternatively, you have bought into the law school revisionism of the powers of the Supreme Court whose decisions have been allowed to overide the Constitution. However, the powers of the Judiciary were as carefully circumscribed as the other two branches of the US government.

Clearly, that cannot be allowed ever. Equally clearly, the Supreme Court has made wrong decisions more than a few times.

So much for the inviolability of "precedent!"

[Terry Mross]

The question is will Brewer submit this to the SC? Or will everyone run and hide and pretend the constitution doesn’t exist. I vote the latter.

[bcsco]

This is a ping list promoting Immigration Enforcement and Congressional Reform.
If you wish to be added or removed from this ping list, please contact me.

At least 22 arrested in Westlake (Los Angeles, CA) as protesters hurl objects at police

“NARCOS” DONNING PRIESTLY GARB

Illegal alien invasion impacts wildlife, hunters

LAPD Chief Beck heckled by angry crowd (great picture!)

McDonnell tells Va. DMV to stop accepting federal employment card

21 illegal immigrants caught in traffic stop

LAPD brass plead for calm; protesters egg station (LA Riots)

Suspect eyed as illegal immigrant

20 illegal immigrants arrested in Orange County beach landing

Obama highlights benefits of ObamaCare for Latinos

NM poll: Majority support Ariz. immigration-check law

TV News Blackout: Los Angeles, 3rd night of violence and disturbances

Illegal immigrant indicted for murder in nun's death

Study Shows Illegal Immigrants From Mexico Staying Put Despite Overall Decline

ICE Says It's Caught-and-Released 506,232 Illegal Aliens Who Are Now Fugitives

LAPD brass vows to investigate fatal shooting of day laborer; protesters egg police station

Mexican military arrests Zetas

Cuellar, Rodriguez, to host roundtable discussion at BTA conference(on border security, South Texas)

New Cartel Threat: U.S. Energy Supply

2012 Watch: 'America's Toughest Sheriff' considers presidential bid

U.S. goods take hit in Latin America

McCain speaks to New Mexico law enforcement (McQueeg admits he supports amnesty, disses Americans)

Wow! The lawsuits get even crazier...

[Jack Hammer]

I have to say that, personally, I find it rather drole that anyone thinks the government any longer gives a rat’s *ss about the principles laid out in the constitution.

[arthurus]

I made that observation in the first comment I made on the first post I saw regarding the suit even before it was “decided.” Why Arizona is going along with the false ruling is a total mystery.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

There is a constitutional problem with federal judges overreaching their authority over the States. It has some interesting twists and turns.

To start with, federal judges can overturn State laws deemed unconstitutional. However, federal judges have taken it further, way beyond their authority, by doing things like ordering States to appropriate money for things the judge wants, and creating special masters to force State compliance. This is wholly unconstitutional.

Even deeper into the constitution, the SCOTUS has in past ruled both that laws passed by congress supersede laws passed by State legislatures, and that federal judges overrule State judges. However, the SCOTUS has *never* ruled that the president can overrule the orders of State governors.

This means that going way back, when the president was in conflict with a governor, and neither side would bend, the president used “force of arms”, the US military, to get what he wanted. This was done most notoriously by president Jackson, against the efforts of South Carolina to nullify a federal tariff; and president Eisenhower, to force school integration in the high school in Little Rock.

Federal intrusiveness into the authority of the States, as well as the willingness of federal judges to hear any and every case that comes before them, no matter how redundant or nonsensical, which overburdens the Supreme Court, may result in an interesting constitutional amendment, a “second court” of the United States.

100 State judges, appointed by the States, as a judicial equivalent to the US Senate, would be the senior appellate court for cases originating from the States, about 8,000 a year, of which the Supreme Court can only hear a tiny handful.

This could be the final say of the States against runaway lower federal judges.

A simple majority of 51 could overturn any federal appellate court decision, which could still be appealed to the SCOTUS. However, if the State judges reached a 2/3rds consensus, or 67 votes, it could not be appealed. And if they reached a 3/4ths consensus, or 75 votes, the *subject* of that case would be excluded from future federal judicial review.

That is, in a manner of speaking, this Second Court of the United States, could be like a permanently seated constitutional convention solely for the judicial branch, to prevent federal judges, and judicial precedent, from running roughshod over the States.

This would correct a constitutional problem based on congress determining both the size and scope of the federal judiciary, but without having the information and familiarity they need to do so, which has resulted in a stultified court system ruled more by precedent than by law, and stuck in a 19th Century organization.

[arthurus]

The ruling “stands” so long as Brewer and Arizona bow to it. In the meantime it constitutes another “precedent” that effectively whites out a provision of the constitution. Future courts will refer to the “precedent,” not to the Constitution.