Posted on 12/22/2014 9:14:43 AM PST by Hostage
Edited on 12/22/2014 9:20:27 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge seems skeptical of a lawsuit that seeks to halt President Barack Obama's immigration plan to spare nearly 5 million people from deportation.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell heard arguments Monday in a case brought by an Arizona sheriff who claims the program will let more illegal immigrants enter the country and commit crimes, burdening law enforcement.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxatlanta.com ...
Article V and the Convention of the States...it’s essentially all we have left outside of well....you know what.
so she’s really ugly....what happens now??? outside of our general perceptions that is? Hitler wasn’t a stunner either.
Well, seeing as how the judge is an Obama appointee is there any doubt as to the outcome?
And nowhere in the Constitution does it give an “inferior” court the authority to hear a “case” involving a “State”. Since the inferior court is acting without constitutional authority, so should the State.
Article 3. section 2
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.
Why is it so hard for people to understand this when it is written in Plain English?? Just because the court refuses to abide by what is written in the Constitution, does not mean a State has to go along with it. Force the Issue.
The problem with your premise here is that Arpaio is not technically acting on behalf of the state itself. As a county level official, Arpaio does get his authority as sheriff from Arizona statutes and/or the Arizona Constitution. However, he is technically not a “state” level official nor a state level actor. Therefore, his lawsuit does not technically fit the bill to be classified as original jurisdiction for the SCOTUS.
You are correct, but at this stage of the game who cares about the rules anyway? Which means Governor Brewer should have joined the case first. But she can always file NOW directly with the supreme Court and if they refuse, she is free to do as she wishes, simply because an inferior Court has no authority over a Free State. But I also said Governor Brewer should have told the Judge in the Drivers License for Illegals case , to go pound sand, there as Governor, She is the “State”.
Federal courts such as District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals do have jurisdiction over state laws and state actions when federal questions are involved. For example, the 4th Circuit just negated a NC law requiring ultrasound viewing and description before an abortion. Although, I respectfully disagree with the decision of the 4th circuit, they still have jurisdiction to negate the law.
One thing to remember is that while states are free to assist in the enforcement of federal laws that ultimately only US Attorneys can actually prosecute federal law violations in federal court. Federal laws cannot be prosecuted in state courts nor can local district attorneys prosecute federal law violations. Likewise civil immigration issues cannot be adjudicated in state courts but rather only federal courts.
It is disappointing that de facto amnesty has been proclaimed but in all reality the lawsuit initiated by the Texas AG and supported by many other states is the one that has a legal great chance of being successful.
This is where we differ, you are willing to cede authority to an inferior court on State laws that might have federal implications. I am Not, My version of the Constitution is clear in this respect. As long as The State is a party, they have NO Jurisdiction. And until someone forces the issue the US Constitution is useless. I know the court has set this up this way, and I am sure they did it for good reason, they don’t want to be bothered with pesky State’s that still demand the Constitution be followed.
As long as The States plays by their rules, there is no chance of Liberty.
The Supreme Court itself has made rulings through the years that the lower federal courts can hear cases involving states as parties. I have to agree with you that it is not Constitutionally sound. In all reality, a Constitutional amendment probably should be made to clarify this issue. I am a strict literal Constitutional advocate and the truth is that the setup of the judiciary and subsequent history of the judiciary has sort of gone off course from what the framers penned.
The communist judge threw it out.
Just about all you need to know to understand why she threw it out (from wikipedia):
“She was nominated by President Barack Obama on July 14, 2010”
“Judge Howell is considered by many to be anti-Constitutional in her jurisprudence, and is associated with the American Progressive Movement; an organization established as a joint venture between American Communist and American Socialist movements. [1]http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6497.
Judge Howells decisions often reflect that association.”
A rare moment of objective clarity not often found on wikipedia.
**********************************
So my suggestion is that perhaps it is time to start publishing on the Internet the personal residences of these tyrannical judges, you know, the way the left publishes the names and address of CCW holders and police officers and others that they consider to be their enemies.
I don’t think that these Circuit Judges are appointed for life. I believe they are appointed for a term. Let me know if I am wrong. What is needed is a good cop-bad cop approach to ridding the Beltway of these parasites. When her term is up, it’s time for her to hit the road Jack.
The problem is the ruling class likes it just the way it is. Grow the government more and more and more as long as they can get their goodies while the gettin’s good.
She should be disciplined (privately).
“Article V and the Convention of the States...it’s essentially all we have left outside of well....you know what.”
Can you please explain how amending the Constitution will help? I see a lot of references to Article V on here, but don’t get the connection since I don’t count enough conservative states.
Thanks!
All federal judges appointed to the District Court level, Circuit Court of Appeals level and at the Supreme Court level are appointed for life and can only be removed by the impeachment process. This was supposed to be to where they could be above the political fray and just focus on the Constitutional application and applying the law instead of making decisions based on the potential for reelection.
Isn’t Columbia that “school” where the kids are getting PTSD from watching cable news?
Welcome to FR. I don’t think I can explain matters as well as Mark Levin does in The Liberty Amendments. You might want to read the book to get a better idea of the “why” and give some further thought afterwards to the “how”. Enjoy the journey.
I have his Liberty and Tyranny book in my Amazon cart, so will add the other too.
Thanks!
My pleasure. Have a Healthy and Happy and politically productive New Year.
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.