Huntington Beach Class, special location Monday, 20 September. 18782 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (Corner of Beach & Constantine)
Monday, August 02, 2010
Judge Bolton Blocking Parts of Arizona Law Unconstitutional
By Douglas V. Gibbs
We know that the Democrats could care less about the U.S. Constitution. They hold case law higher than the law of the land. In fact, sometimes I am not even sure they have read the Constitution in the first place.
A great example of how ignorant these bastards are when it comes to the Constitution is Judge Bolton's decision to strike down parts of Arizona's Immigration Law (SB 1070).
It is bad enough that the federal government is suing a State government. It is worse that the reason for the lawsuit is that the federal government is angry that the State of Arizona is willing to enforce the law. . . law that the federal government, many folks believe, is supposed to be enforcing themselves.
Well, according to the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, the federal government "shall protect each [State] from invasion."
As for the enforcement question, if one reads the Constitution, the federal government is not granted the authority to enforce immigration law (aside from sealing the border to protect us from invasion) anywhere in the text of the document. The 10th Amendment states that if an issue is not a federal authority, nor prohibited to the States, the authority belongs to the States. Therefore, enforcing immigration law at the State level is not only Constitutional, it is their responsibility.
The Constitution, when it comes to this lawsuit, comes to the rescue again in Article III. In the Ninth Circuit Court, which is an inferior federal court, Judge Susan R. Bolton struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law. Problem is, she didn't even have the Constitutional authority to hear the case in the first place.
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), meaning it should bypass all of the lower courts, and jump right up to the U.S. Supreme Court, simply because the State of Arizona is one of the parties in the case.
Sadly, this not only proves that Bolton either does not understand the U.S. Constitution, or is blatantly ignoring it, but that Attorney General Eric Holder, who filed the case in a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear it in the first place, also is either ignorant of the Constitution, or is circumventing it as well.
Jan Brewer, if she understands State Sovereignty, and the U.S. Constitution as I believe she does, now has a fantastic avenue to pursue. She can 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, U.S. Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.
Then, if Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal (and as a liberal she probably would), Governor Brewer should then file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (an order to a lower court to do something correctly) in the U.S. Supreme Court asking that high court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The federal district court judge has unconstitutionally taken a case the U.S. Constitution prohibits the lower court from hearing, and that is a usurpation of power.
Let's hope Governor Brewer is also aware of this.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial - Canada Free Press