Supreme Court leaning to AZ immigration law

Comments Off

The Supreme Court appears ready to allow Arizona to enforce a state law provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.

The justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are not buying the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check part of a controversial state law aimed at driving illegal immigrants out of the state. It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer reacted favorably as well after oral arguments (see related AP video report).

ACLJ, FAIR optimistic

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice, adds its optimism to AP’s impression following oral arguments today. “What became very clear during the intense questioning is that a majority of the Justices seem to believe that Arizona has a legitimate role in the enforcement of laws designed to protect its citizens and border,” he offered in a press statement.

“It was also important to note that during the arguments, the government, which is challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law, conceded that S.B. 1070 does not involve racial or ethnic profiling — an argument that’s been repeatedly used to challenge the immigration measure.”

Sekulow concedes that while such cases are always difficult to predict as a result of oral arguments, he remains hopeful the court will conclude that Arizona “acted properly and constitutionally” to protect its citizens and borders.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) adds that attorneys for Arizona presented “compelling legal reasons” why the Supreme Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision to block provisions in the law. Among those reasons, says FAIR, are that states have inherent authority to enforce immigration laws, and that the Ninth Circuit “erred” in accepting the Obama administration’s argument that the Arizona law interferes with its own enforcement “priorities and strategies.” FAIR equates those priorities and strategies as being a “non-enforcement policy.”

Read more

 

 

Justice Department to Send Election Observers to Arizona as Concern Rises About Illegal Voters

2 Comments

I’m just wondering when is Arizona going to say “enough of the Federal government” poking it’s nose in State business? We’re talking about people being in the country “illegally” , that Arizona wants to stop from voting and the Federal government wants to protect their rights?

Justice Department to Send Election Observers to Arizona as Concern Rises About Illegal Voters

The Justice Department is sending a small pack of election observers to Arizona as Hispanic groups sound the alarm over an anti-illegal immigration group’s mass e-mail seeking to recruit Election Day volunteers to help block illegal immigrants from voting. (Duh!…the key word here is “ILLEGAL”.)

Hispanic voting rights groups say the e-mail is just an attempt to intimidate minority voters. But election fraud monitors say that there are hundreds of examples of duplicate registrations, wrong information and past unregistered voters getting ballots.

Voter fraud allegations have emerged just days before the midterm in many crucial battleground states across the country, including Nevada, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The Justice Department announced Friday it would deploy more than 400 federal observers to 30 jurisdictions in 18 states ahead of Tuesday’s election. But Arizona officials say the department had already committed to sending observers to their state.

But William Gheen, executive director of Americans for Legal Immigration, said he knows why they’re coming.

“They’re sending them out because the Obama administration is doing everything it can to make sure as many illegal aliens vote in 2010 although that is a violation of federal law,” he told FoxNews.com.

Benson noted that the Justice Department sends election observers to at least one Arizona county every election. In 2006, the department sent around 30 election observers to Maricopa County, he said.

Benson said the plan had nothing to do with the firestorm elicited by Ban Amnesty Now, or B.A.N., the group that sent an e-mail entitled “6 Days to STOP Illegals from Stealing the Election!”

The e-mail said “open-border criminals” in the unions, the White House and Hispanic groups are “determined to undermine” the election.

Part of the concern for voter fraud monitors is a result of a ruling this week by a federal appeals court that stripped the state of its ability to request proof of citizenship when residents register to vote. State officials say the ruling could increase the likelihood of voter fraud but not in next week’s midterms because the deadline for registration passed before the decision.

At Arizona polls, voters must show one piece of identification that includes their name, address and photograph, such as a driver’s license. They also can provide two forms of ID with their names and address, such as a utility bill or bank statement. Voters can also provide one form a acceptable photo ID with another form of non-photo ID that includes their name and address, such as a passport and a utility bill.

Monterroso said he’s happy the Justice Department is sending poll watchers, even if it’s not in response to his group’s letter.

“I think it’s the right thing to do,” he said. “It’s better to be safe than sorry. If they have people out there, we want to make sure people vote without fear of intimidation or harassment by anyone else. ( You mean “intimidation or harassment like this? The kind the government declined to prosecute?-MD)

http://helpmejoseph.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c8ed053ef01156fbd6f63970c-pi

Fox News

 


UPDATED: 9th Circuit Unconstitutionally overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Comments Off

Here we have another example of why the Founding Fathers didn’t intend for the Federal Judges to rule on State issues. The will of the people has been once again struck down by one Federal Judge. Clearly the Constitution only allows for CITZENS to vote. The ninth circuit has more cases overturned than any other circuit. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

Let’s see what the Constitution says about who votes according to my Constitutional Lawyer friend:

Art. 1, Sec. 4, U.S. Constitution, re: the “time, place and manner” of elections. Note that Congress may by law alter such regulations as the States make. However, this clause has to do with the “time, place & manner” of elections – NOT “qualifications” of electors.

Clearly only “citizens” may vote! See 15th, 19th, 24th, & 26th amendments!

15th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude…”

19th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

24th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President,……”

26th Amendment: “The right of CITIZENS of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

9th Circuit overturns AZ proof-of-citizenship voting rule

Yes, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals strikes again.

And yes, Sandra Day O’Connor played a role in helping the liberal majority.

Facepalm:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Arizona’s requirement that people show proof of citizenship to register to vote.

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The court did uphold Arizona’s photo ID requirement.

But as you know from reading this blog, the Obama Department of Social Justice has also been actively sabotaging state efforts to ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in U.S. elections.

More details on the 9th Circuit ruling:

A three-judge panel of the court said the proof-of- citizenship requirement conflicted with the intent of the federal law aiming to increase voter registration by streamlining the process with a single form and removing state- imposed obstacles to registration. (Again for the Federal law to supersede State law it must fall into the category of one of the “enumerated powers” described in the Constitution-MD)

The federal law requires applicants to “attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury” without requiring documentary proof, the panel said.

“Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration,” the judges said.

The law was challenged by voting rights and Hispanic advocacy groups.

The decision is “a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation” that the Constitution “will protect our democratic process,” Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a San Antonio-based group that argued the case, said in a statement.

As I’ve noted before: No illegal alien left behind. That’s the progs’ plan.

Mechelle Malkin

Our Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble With SCOTUS One Way or the Other

Comments Off

Finally the Constitution may be finally upheld in the near future instead of being constantly stepped on and trampled by this administration. I might add G.W. Bush was no angel as far as following the Constitution either. This would be great news if just some things on this list are addressed Constitutionally in the VERY near future by SCOTUS and they have the guts to rule according to the “original intent” of the Constitution by the Founders.

Our Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevit…

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.  Critics have complained that much if not all of Obama’s major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.

Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.

The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, ‘That’s no… when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court’s ruling.

As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government.  Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until ‘Obama is gone.’

Apparently, the Court has had enough.

The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.

Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is ObamaCare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.  And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.  The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle.

In the ObamaCare world, however, no citizen can ‘opt out.’

Second,  sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama’s history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.  This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not the President himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.  Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ to sue the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group is caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the….

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies.

This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling–that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Resist Net

ICE Withholds Illegal Immigration Enforcement Data

Comments Off

More lack of transparency from the most promised Transparent Administration ever……Barack Husein Obama.

ICE Withholds Enforcement Data

Despite President Obama’s promise to create an unprecedented level of openness in government, the Homeland Security agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws is illegally withholding crucial data about its enforcement performance, according to a reputable independent research center that monitors the federal government.

Just six months ago, another Homeland Security agency— U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services—tried blocking the disclosure of information by charging the same group (Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse—TRAC) a ghastly $111,930 to obtain a description of files stored on a database. When news spread of the outrageous demand, the agency admitted it acted inappropriately and subsequently provided the records.

This week TRAC is accusing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of serious legal and procedural violations for failing to disclose performance data on how the agency is enforcing immigration laws. In doing so, ICE is violating long standing provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as well as its own administrative rules and policies set by the Department of Justice.http://trac.syr.edu/foia/ice/20101004/

Seeking to determine if the federal government is fulfilling its responsibility, TRAC requested the records to reveal what ICE is doing and not doing to enforce the nation’s immigration laws. Specifically the public records request asked for the agency’s anonymous alien-by-alien statistical data about the arrests, detentions, charges and removal activities.

Among the anonymous statistical data that ICE previously released but now said were “unavailable” were the city or state where the alien’s apprehension took place, the facility where the alien is currently being detained, the nature of the formal removal charges, the details of any criminal charges and the alien’s marital status.

Judicial Watch

Obama Hauls Arizona Before the UN Human Rights Council

4 Comments

What the heck does this president think he’s doing? He obviously doesn’t think he has a case in the courts against Arizona, so he’s going to use the argument of “human rights” against Arizona to the UN? I’m at a loss  for words here, so I’m going to ask the question my Constitutional lawyer asked, “Can anyone find any provision in Our Constitution which permits the Executive Branch to “submit” our domestic issues to an international body for determination?”

The report describes how the United States discriminates against the disabled, homosexuals, women, Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics and those who don’t speak English. There is the expected pandering to Muslims, noting that the government is committed to “challenge misperceptions and discriminatory stereotypes, to prevent acts of vandalism and to combat hate crimes,” offenses that the American people evidently keep committing. And the current economic woes are blamed on the housing crisis, which itself was the result of “discriminatory lending practices.” The implication is that if Americans had only been less racist, they would be enjoying prosperity today.

The report notes that until recently, the U.S. engaged in torture, unlawfully detained terrorist suspects and illegally spied on Americans communicating with terrorists – but the report assures readers that Mr. Obama has been putting a stop to all that.

The authors claim that the United States does not, by filing the report, “acknowledge commonality with states that systematically abuse human rights,” but of course it does. Dictatorships, authoritarian regimes and theocracies competing for legitimacy on the world stage have been handed a potent new weapon, the kind of assessment they would never offer about their own governments. The report also cautions that it should not be read to reflect “doubt in the ability of the American political system to deliver progress for its citizens.” The authors of the report should understand that the doubts in the Obama administration to deliver progress are already well-established. And they come from the American people, who don’t need the United Nations telling them to shape up.

Washington Times


Obama Hauls Arizona Before the UN Human Rights Council

Apparently Barack Obama is not content to makefederal case out of his immigration feud with Arizona; he just made it an international one.

image

The president’s first-ever report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material. So far, one aspect has not been reported: our petty president used the situation to bashArizona’s immigration lawand possibly transfer jurisdiction over the law from Arizona to the UN. Throughout the report, which sounds like an Obama campaign speech, the president discusses “the original flaw” of the U.S. Constitution, America’s tolerance for slavery, and his version of our long and despicable history of discriminating against and oppressing minorities, women, homosexuals, and the handicapped. After each complaint, he addresses how he is delivering us from ourselves, patting himself on the back for such initiatives as ending “torture,” promoting Affirmative Action, and passing health care legislation.

In his section on “Values and Immigration,” he praised the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to provide better medical care for detainees and increase “Alternatives To Detention” (e.g., letting them go). Then he turned to the one state that has had the temerity to stand in his way of fundamentally transforming the American electorate:

A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.

On Obama’s command, Attorney General Eric Holder has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading, and which merely upholds federal law. (He gave sanctuary cities a pass.) He now threatens an additional lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio for “racial profiling” when arresting illegal immigrants near the Mexican border.

Obama’s turns his skirmish with Jan Brewer from a states rights dispute into an international human rights cause. It also places Arizona’s law in the hands of the United Nations.

The national report is but the first step of the international government’s review process. On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon (an oppressive nation which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference). This trio will consider three items: Obama’s self-flagellating report, reports written about America by UN tribunals or international governing bodies, and testimony from NGOs with a pronounced anti-American bias. It will also consider “voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State,” such as suspending an Arizona state law.

Then the French, Japanese, and Cameroon diplomats will draw up a plan of action for the United States to implement.

Nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance. However, its website asserts, “The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the” World Body.

When the Left cannot win at the ballot box (virtually every time), it overrules the people in the courts. Now that Obama is not sure he can prevail in the courts, he has overruled the American people by hauling Arizona and the two-thirds of Americans who support its law before the United Nations.

By Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

Western Journalism

Obama Justice Dept. Argued in Favor of Using Race As a Relevant Factor Among Others to Justify Immigration Stops

Comments Off

Ooops! Let’s see what was that the federal government was arguing about being so bad about the new Arizona Immigration Law (SB 1070) ? Oh, yes, it was RACIAL PROFILING wasn’t it….yes indeed it was. So what now do we see the federal government has argued in favor of? Racial Profiling !!! Ooops, as we say here in Tennessee, kind of ” like the pot calling the kettle black.”

Obama Justice Dept. Argued in Favor of Using Race As a Relevant Factor Among Others to Justify Immigration Stops

In at least three court cases, President Obama’s Justice Department has argued in favor of federal law enforcement officers using race as a factor in determining whether to stop someone for a suspected immigration violation.

It has done so despite the fact that the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report that they do not engage in “racial profiling.”

The Justice Department’s legal arguments in defense of federal law enforcement officers using race as one factor among others in making immigration stops are based on the 1975 Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce. In that case, the court held 9-0 that an officer making an immigration stop must be able to cite “specific articulable facts” that “reasonably warrant suspicion” that illegal aliens are present.

“Except at the border and its functional equivalents, officers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country,” the court ruled in Brignoni-Ponce.

The Court said law enforcement officers could not stop a car merely because the occupants appeared to be of Mexican descent, but that they could consider such an appearance as one factor in making a determination that there was “reasonable suspicion” that illegal aliens were present.

CNS News

Must Supreme Court Judges Obey The Constitution?

1 Comment

Here’s another great article by my retired Constitutional Lawyer friend from Tennessee Publius Huldah where she answers some questions that arose from her last article about the Arizona Immigration law and the fact that the Federal Courts have no Constitutional authority to rule whether the law is Constitutional or not.

Must Supreme Court Judges Obey The Constitution?

The Trial of The Lawsuit Against The State of Arizona:

By Publius Huldah  Wednesday, August 18, 2010

In my last paper, I showed that Our Constitution requires that the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Brewer be tried in the supreme Court; and that federal district court judge Susan Bolton has no constitutional authority to preside over the trial.

But many responded that the case is properly before Judge Bolton because Congress & the supreme Court have said that cases where a State is a Party may be tried in federal district court.

//

Thus we come to The Pivotal Question of Our Time: Will we restore the Rule of Law, which prevails when people in the federal government obey The Constitution? Or will we side with those who seek to expand the Rule of Men, where people holding Power do whatever they want?

1. The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-88 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to explain the proposed Constitution to The People and to induce them to ratify it. Thus, The Federalist is the most authoritative commentary on the genuine meaning of Our Constitution.  And at a meeting of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825 at which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were present, the following resolution selecting the texts for the Law school, was passed:

…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83)  [emphasis added]

So! Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, Father of The Constitution, acknowledged the high authoritative status of The Federalist Papers.  They saw The Constitution as having a fixed meaning which one could learn by consulting The Federalist!

2. But supreme Court judges soon refused to submit to The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers. In 1907, former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes said, “…the Constitution is what the judges say it is…”.  Judges thus rejected the objective standard provided by The Federalist, and substituted their own subjective interpretations. Law schools embraced this subversion:  Instead of teaching The Constitution as a set of fixed principles explained by The Federalist, they taught supreme Court opinions which say Congress may do whatever it pleases. They also taught that supreme Court judges have unbridled authority to say what the Constitution means. Law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers & judges who have been indoctrinated with the monstrous Lie that Our Constitution means whatever judges on the supreme Court say!  And because these lawyers failed in their sacred duty to think, and uncritically accepted what they were told, Our Country is on the brink of destruction.

Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute understands this pivotal issue. He said:

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely—if we lived under the Constitution. But we don’t. Today we live under something called “constitutional law”—an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions—and that “law” reflects the Constitution only occasionally.

Now you see how we came to this state where lawyers insist on a view of Art. III, §2 which is, to the eye of reason, contrary to The Constitution: They don’t obey The Constitution – they obey the supreme Court, as they were trained in law school to do.

3. Let us review Art. III, §2:

Clause 1 lists the categories of cases federal judges are permitted to hear.
Look at clause 2: The FIRST SENTENCE lists two of the categories set forth in clause 1 (cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” & “those in which a State shall be Party”) and says that in ALL such cases, the supreme Court SHALL have original [trial] jurisdiction.

The SECOND SENTENCE says that in all the other cases set forth in clause 1, “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.”

The Constitution is clear!  So is The Federalist. In No. 81, Hamilton sums it up:

We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, “with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.” (15th para)

See also, as to the supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, No. 81 (13th para).  As to the “exceptions & regulations” respecting the supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, see No. 81 (last 6 paras): the exceptions & regulations merely address the mode of doing appeals.

I laid it out in a previous paper. But the clearest explanation of this whole issue is that given by Dr. Alan Keyes in his recent article at World Net Daily.

The supreme Court once knew that Congress could not reduce its original jurisdiction! In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the supreme Court discussed Art. III, §2, clause 2:

If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance… (p 174)

…When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original… [emphasis added] (p 175)

Marbury v. Madison got it right – THAT is what the Constitution & The Federalist Papers actually say!  But today, supreme court jurisprudence has “evolved” to embrace a view which contradicts The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and Marbury v. Madison!

4. So! In a recent article at World Net Daily, two constitutional lawyers are quoted to the effect that the “exceptions & regulations” language in the SECOND SENTENCE of clause 2 (which defines the supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction), permits Congress to reduce the supreme Court’s original jurisdiction granted in the FIRST SENTENCE of clause 2!

Why do lawyers say this?  Because Congress at 28 USC § 1251 et seq., & the supreme Court (e.g., Case v. Bowles (1946) at page 97) said so; and lawyers go by what the supreme Court last said, not by the Constitution. Lawyers are trained to obey the supreme Court – they do not believe the supreme Court is subject to The Constitution. Like Charles Evans Hughes, they see the supreme Court as above The Constitution!

5. One of the lawyers is also quoted as saying, “Could you imagine every case that involves a state as a party being before the Supreme Court? The court would be so loaded with those kinds of cases”.  Another commentator said that “states are sued all the time”, “every time a state is sued it goes to the supreme court?”, and that only lawyers “who have no idea of what the history is” would say that only the supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of the case against Arizona.

I do not wish to pillory good men.  So I ask everyone to consider these two points:

ONE:  As Art. III, §§2, clause 1 shows on its face, the judicial Power of the United States extends only to cases of “federal” or “national” cognizance.  Hamilton explains each category of case in Federalist No. 80, and shows why each is a proper object of the federal courts. Read it, and you will see that the judicial Power does not extend to matters of internal concern to States. Furthermore, in Federalist No. 83 (8th para), Hamilton said:

…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the

federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority.  [emphasis added]

Yes!  The powers of the federal courts are enumerated!  Federal courts are not supposed to hear any case which does not fall within the categories listed at Art. III, §2, clause 1.  If the supreme Court would stay within its enumerated powers, its case load would be greatly reduced. Read No. 80 carefully, and much should become clear.

TWO: Congress’ powers are also enumerated! Congress has constitutional authority over international commerce and war. Domestically, it has authority to establish a uniform commercial system (bankruptcy laws, a monetary system, weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a limited power over interstate commerce, and mail delivery.)  It has authority to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. The Amendments granted Congress powers to protect former slaves, voting rights, and lay income taxes. That’s about it!

This is why Hamilton was able to say in Federalist No. 81 (15th para),

…the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. [emphasis added]

Congress has very little constitutional authority to make laws affecting States.  Do you not see how this reduces the opportunities for litigation where a State would be party?

But most of the laws made by Congress for over 100 years are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress. And since the judicial Power of the federal courts includes all Cases arising under “the Laws of the United States”, the federal courts are clogged with cases arising out of unconstitutional federal laws!

So! Requiring the supreme Court to obey the Constitution and to conduct the trials of cases of federal cognizance where a State is Party, would be a check on the powers of Congress. If the supreme Court’s trial docket were clogged with cases arising out of unconstitutional federal laws, perhaps the Court would do its duty and declare the laws unconstitutional!

6. We have been going in the wrong direction for a very long time.  We all need to go back to basics and start rethinking basic constitutional principles.  Our survival may depend on it. PH.

Canada Free Press


ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial (Against Arizona)

7 Comments

Here’s another great article by my retired Constitutional lawyer friend Publius Huldah on what I’ve been saying recently about the verdict handed down by Judge Susan Bolton and her non-authority to do so.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

By Publius Huldah  Thursday, July 29, 2010

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…

“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 (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party. Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….[boldface added, caps in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.

2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law “extraordinary writ”: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

….the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.”…(para 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped – by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 – of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.

Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty – it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

OK, counselors – Go for it! PH

Canada Free Press

Arizona Immigration Law Hurts Foreign Policy

4 Comments

Oh brother Pleasssee! The DOJ is arguing that the Arizona immigration law is hurting foreign policy. I’m at a lose for words………what will they think of next? Don’t forget the 11th amendment prohibits the Federal government from allowing foreign countries from joining the US federal government in a suit like this……BUT what does the Constitution mean anymore to this administration.

Arizona Immigration Law Hurts Ties With Mexico, Federal Suit Argues

The Justice Department, in its lawsuit filed Tuesday against the Arizona immigration law, repeatedly cited concerns that the policy has undermined and interfered with its relationship with Mexico — raising questions about whether foreign policy has any place in the domestic case.

The lawsuit generally argues that the federal government has the primary responsibility for immigration policy and should be able to preempt — and nullify — the Arizona law.

But as part of the complaint, the Obama administration warns the Arizona law could damage ties with Mexico and other countries and has already had “foreign policy implications for U.S. diplomatic relations.”

The suit cites Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s May address to Congress where he blasted the Arizona immigration law and a travel alert Mexico’s Foreign Ministry issued in late April for Mexicans visiting Arizona. The Mexican government also played a role in getting the Department of Education to move a conference out of Arizona.

The federal government argues that Arizona is acting with the sole aim of getting rid of illegal immigrants, whereas the federal government’s responsibilities are much broader and more complex.

But state Sen. Russell Pearce, the bill’s sponsor, called the foreign policy argument bogus and said Mexico’s hurt feelings should not be a factor in deciding whether Arizona can enforce immigration law.

“There’s no basis in law for that,” he told FoxNews.com. “This is crazy stuff. … We’re a sovereign nation.”

One concern the lawsuit does not claim in its argument is racial profiling. Though officials frequently warned that the law could lead to profiling, the only mention of that in the 25-page court document was to note that Arizona amended its earlier law to address profiling concerns.

The Arizona law makes illegal immigration a state crime. It requires local law enforcement to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant on their residency status provided they don’t stop them on that basis alone.

Fox News

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers