Safe Mode: On
Wrong Court Ruled on Arizona Law/Smack down of Obama by SCOTUS may be inevitable.

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.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. 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 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.

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.

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, 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 every bit 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.

And there are established procedures by which Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton can be removed from her position as a result of her violating her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution for the United States of America ....


Behavior Never Lies; Actions Alone Show Our True Priorities.


-------------------------------------



July 9, 12:03 PM Conservative Examiner Anthony G. Martin

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 inevitable.

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.

(AP Photo/Keith Srakocic). Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

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 not true,' 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 inHawaii. 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 atempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.



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.


Click to view image: 'ab64d8637284-abc.jpg'

Added: Sep-15-2010 
By: HydrogenEconomy
In:
Iran, News
Tags: scotus, supreme, court, obama, arizona, constitution, smack, down
Views: 9850 | Comments: 52 | Votes: 5 | Favorites: 4 | Shared: 2 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • How come Im not seeing this in the news.

    Posted Sep-15-2010 By 

    (9) | Report

    • Comment of user 'Zardoz003' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • The MSM Compelling News Criteria:

      1. Anything that slams a conservative
      2. Lohan, GaGa, Madonna
      3. Anything even slightly close to anti Black racism (if white perpetrator)
      4. Obama Fluff
      5. All Else

      Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

      (4) | Report

  • This is big.

    Now we'll see if we're still America.

    Posted Sep-15-2010 By 

    (8) | Report

  • Funny, wasn't Obama a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago for something like 12 years. He doesn't even look out for his own does he.

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (6) | Report

  • GO ARIZONA!!!!!!!!!

    Posted Sep-15-2010 By 

    (5) | Report

  • The Supreme Court long ago interpreted that clause as giving it the right but not the absolute duty to exercize original jurisdiction. Except for suits between states, the Supreme Court automatically delegates jurisdiction for suites against states to the Federal circuit courts.

    Posted Sep-15-2010 By 

    (4) | Report

  • regardless...charge him with treason, arrest him, sentence him to die in front of a firing squad, carry out the sentence, then if there are any questions...he will get his day in court.

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (4) | Report

  • Comment of user 'htos1' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Those men who wrote the Constitution were geniuses.. they were giants compared to the clowns we have today.

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (3) | Report

  • Comment of user 'jsczerby' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • oh my and our illustrious leader... who is a LAWYER didn't know that??

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (2) | Report

    • Comment of user 'jsczerby' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • this is what happens when you put politics above america

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Conmstimunition wha is that pa?

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Good Post, Hydro-E ...Thanx for the info. I can't wait for the excuses the administration comes up with, about this.

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Oh, SNAP !

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (0) | Report

  • "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."

    Hmm--I wonder if the court will, or can, hear a single omnibus suit addressing malfeasance and abuse of office by a president?

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (0) | Report

  • this is a bunch of B.S. Violent crimes have not been as low as they are now in Arizona for over 30 years how can you compare that to any war torn country? Those facts are straight from the department of justice there is something very hypocritical in the ancestors of immigrants denying others the same rights their ancestors had and they're looking for the same your ancestors were. if there's a bunch of violent crime happening I could understand you but there's not there is no justification for More..

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (0) | Report

    • Tax payer money to teach "ethnic studies"? unless it's "ethnic American studies" I don't think so. Let mom and dad do that.
      If you want to "open up" YOUR house for them, by all means invite them over. But they aren't welcome in mine, my choice.
      In the mean time I have an even better idea. Why don't they just stay in their own country and make it just like America? Then they'll be happy to stay there. Or is that too simple a solution?
      I know that America did just th More..

      Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Ah, now I understand; you think there is some sort of difference between Obama and Bush.

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (0) | Report

  • The Canada Free Press? mmmm ok why Canada? The constitutional right of a state to declare war if being invaded is ridiculous. First of all what is this invasion you speak of? You must be talking about those "headless bodies" ahhh oook. Of course since we hear of murderous immigrants rushing thru the border with machine gun in hand killing citizens on a regular basis..AZ should declare war on Mexico and they along with JT Ready's neo-army would be crushed by the Mexican/U.S. allied for More..

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (-5) | Report

  • To quote George Bush; Its just a G-D piece of paper

    Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

    (-6) | Report

  • Wonder why one of these right wing constitutional lawyers didn't catch it...probably to busy filing 'Obama is not legally entitled to the office' cases....LOL!

    Posted Sep-15-2010 By 

    (-12) | Report

    • Comment of user 'knowsmuslims' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Wow all kinds of goodies in that thar Constitution. So a state has the right to invade another country huh? So if Brewer gives the go ahead Sheriff Arpaio can charge into Mexico on his white steed and slay those cartel varmints? Yahoooooo Joe! Go get'em general.

    Posted Sep-15-2010 By 

    (-16) | Report

    • Now your making sense.

      Posted Sep-15-2010 By 

      (2) | Report

    • Is that the best you can come up with? I don't think anyone here is suggesting a 'Joe Arpaio Expeditionary Force' campaign into the Mexican desert.

      I'm not a lawyer, but I gather from that article Obama Inc had no legal (Constitutional) right to do what they did, which as we all know has never been an obstacle for them before.

      Posted Sep-15-2010 By 

      (11) | Report

    • Sober up...

      Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

      (9) | Report

    • I guess you don't know what the word "State" means in term of a government body. If a "State" decided to break away from a Federal/Union, it could declares itself independent and become a country.

      Posted Sep-16-2010 By 

      (0) | Report