The ninth ircuit court has no jurisdiction to rule on AZ border law

Got this in an email and have to share.

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<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983>. 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 of our Constitution
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<http://unitedpatriotsofamerica.com/Home/Articles/Params/arcticlecate
gory/1674/menu/147/default.aspx>.
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, 115 bodies recovered in AZ entry routes, 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 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.

This message must be circulated around the USA.
--
Carolyn Scott

The Canada Free Press is interpreting U.S. law? There seems to be gaps in both their understanding of the law and U.S. history.

After the Civil War, Congress passed lots of legislation granting increased power to the federal government at the expense of state authority. The federal government, having won the civil war, pretty much imposed its will on the states during the decade after the war, and despite what a literal reading of the Constitution might say, it's been like that ever since. The Removal Act of 1875 was one of those pieces of legislation, and it pretty much granted lower federal courts the ability to act on behalf on the Supreme Court. If you care to know more about this act: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/landmark_11.html

Now if you think the Removal Act was an unconstitutional extension of power by the Congress in violation of what the Constitution actually said, here's what the Supreme Court said about it in Boers v. Preston (1884):

Quote :

The constitutional grant of original jurisdiction to this Court of all cases affecting consuls, does not prevent Congress from conferring original jurisdiction, in such cases, also, upon the subordinate courts of the Union.

That same year, in Ames v. Kansas, the Supreme Court repeated themselves:

Quote :

In view of the practical construction put upon the Constitution by Congress and the courts in the statutes and decisions cited in the opinion, the Court is unwilling to say that it is not within the power of Congress to grant to inferior courts of the United States jurisdiction in cases where the Supreme Court has been vested by the Constitution with original jurisdiction.

So, given that the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution. And given that the Supreme Court agreed that it was okay for Congress to extend the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to lower federal courts, like it or not, that's been the law for what, over 130 years now.

Pete, you just described where America started going off the rails. It's those perversions of the original meaning of the constitution and the abdication of responsibility and authority by the scotus that has allowed so many destructive policies to be enacted.

fatbass wrote:

Pete, you just described where America started going off the rails. It's those perversions of the original meaning of the constitution and the abdication of responsibility and authority by the scotus that has allowed so many destructive policies to be enacted.

A-FREAKING-MEN!