 |
| From My Pictures |
Posted on 08/03/2010 3:00:19 PM PDT by NoGrayZone
Maybe we could speed up the process of getting the AZ law to the Supreme Court by having a friendly neighboring state (Texas?) sue AZ on grounds that the law would harm them by driving more illegals into their state?
My question is if the state is prevented from applying
the law to those persons who are there illegally, does
that not negate the right of the majority of persons in
the state to equal treatment under the law?
The 14th says it can’t do that.
There shouldn't be any appeal - the only court that has any jurisdiction is the Supreme Court.
The way I see it is:
A) Someone can’t go killing, raping and pillaging illegals. They will get equal protection of the laws if someone does so.
B) Equal PROTECTION doesn’t mean Equal RIGHTS.
If this is true, it is amazingly straightforward and incredibly stupid on the part of our Justice Department to have overlooked it.
The article and section refer to Jury trials. Since this was not a jury trial, I don’t think this argument holds water.
“In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis”
How can you have a “Constitutional crisis” if you don’t have a constitution anymore. It’s been a doormat for years, practically the whole government is un-constitutional.
b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
,,,,
Which means what it says, the District Federal Court can hear a suit about a "controvers(y) between the United States and a State." After its ruling(s) appeals to the Federal Appeals Court for that District (the ninth in this case) can be made and thence to the Supreme Court can be made, either of which can agree to hear it or let it stand.
I’m not a lawyer, but do believe I know how to read plain English.
Clause 2 states:
“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.”
This says any cases in which A STATE shall be Party. How does that clause restrict USSC to original jurisdiction only in State against State cases? Arizona is A STATE which was sued by the Feds. Seems like original jurisdiction applies here.
Then it goes on to say:
“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.”
This clearly must be a reference to cases in Clause 1, as opposed to cases in the sentence immediately prior. Otherwise it doesn’t make sense to split Clause 2 into two sentences (moreover, sentence one deals with original jurisdiction, while sentence two deals with appellate jurisdiction).
Thus, it would appear that Congress can regulate SC’s jurisdiction over appellate cases, but this clause provides NO authority to do so in the cases of original jurisdiction specified in the first sentence.
“This desecration of our flag was on the main lawn directly in front of the Arizona Capital building”
Isn’t flag desecration illegal?
The author of this blog was banned from FR. Are you pimping for him now?
Very good point.
I would guess, 30 million illegals and their supporters, could care less what is legal, and what is not.
Laws and rules are for citizens to obey.
“I’m not a lawyer, but do believe I know how to read plain English.”
The law isn’t written in plain English.
“The author of this blog was banned from FR. Are you pimping for him now?”
This isn’t the Andy Martin “Internet Powerhouse” is it?
Well, I guess Andy isn’t short for Anthony. Never mind.
Maybe they’re brothers? :-)
I though so too when I first became aware of this, but this is the part that makes the difference:
with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
This particular matter is indeed relgated to the inferior Courts.
Below is the key provision that gives the Supreme Court original but not exclusive jurisdiction to hear actions between the United States and States. Note that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear actions between States but not between the United States and States. § 1251. Original jurisdiction (a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: (1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties; (2) All controversies between the United States and a State; (3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens. Does anyone know if there is a past SCOTUS decision which specifically placed the enactment of rules regarding immigration/entry under the same jurisdiction as the "Rule of Naturalizattion"?
No, but this is from the first legal treatise written after Ratification. [Before anyone tries to convince you it's 'just philosophy' and doesn't mean anything, this same paper was submitted to the Supreme Court and accepted as legal evidence in the RKBA District of Columbia v. Heller case.]
[Section 9 — Powers of Congress (cont.)]
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shalt have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states. And as the right of denization did not make a citizen of an alien, but only placed him in a middle state, between the two, giving him local privileges only, which he was so far from being entitled to carry with him into another state, that he lost them by removing from the state giving them, the inconveniencies which might result from the indirect communication of the rights of naturalized citizens, by different modes of naturalization prevailing in the several states, could not be apprehended.
George Tucker / Volume 1 — Appendix / Note D
I wonder why America just doesn't get it...these activists have to do everything under the cover of darkness, adopt a pose to get their agenda snuck through.
You would think intelligent secure people would find these tactics highly offensive and want nothing to do with it.
We need a process that outs these charlatans and give them very lengthy prison sentences and bar them from any government position for life.
I don’t know Andy. lol
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.