In Arizona Immigration Ruling, Judge Bolton Has No Jurisdiction, And Other Problems For The Obama Regime. UPDATED

Scroll down for update at bottom.

By Gary P Jackson

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.
~Publius Huldah

From Canada Free Press, a bit of information that should change the entire debate over Arizona’s attempt to protect itself from the invasion from Mexico, and the violent crime it brings. It also brings up many questions that absolutely need answers. (Like why didn’t we figure this out first!)

Look, we all know that Obama, his corrupt Attorney General Eric Holder, and other regime officials never bothered to read Arizona SB 1070 before declaring it “racist” and “unconstitutional.” Of course, the law simply mirrors federal law, only less severe. Other states like California and Florida have similar, but tougher laws. With that said, we know that both Obama and Holder have little more constitutional knowledge past knowing that such a document allegedly exists. I doubt either has read the Constitution fully, or even cares.

With that said, one wonders how Jan Brewer’s defense team missed this one. The Constitution is very clear on this. No wiggle room whatsoever.

Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee. She writes on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at publiushuldah.wordpress.com She has this to say about the situation in Arizona:

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

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.

This is quite the pickle Holder and Dear Leader find themselves in. This is pretty cut and dried. Only the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to rule on SB 1070, because the Obama regime is suing the sovereign state of Arizona. This would seemingly void everything activist judge, Susan Bolton, has done, including staying parts of the Arizona law.

This isn’t the only problem the Obama regime has though. Chris Battle of U.S. News And World Report offers up this:

Congress Passed an Arizona-Like Immigration Law in 1996

Back in 1996 (when fanny packs were still cool, in some circles) it was time to get tough on immigration, and an interesting little law was passed. Congress deemed it appropriate for state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law. In the inscrutable manners of Washington (where all legislation seems to be named with insufferably cute acronyms or indecipherable legislative codes that read like security passwords), this law came to be known as 287g.

Want to know what 287g says? Well, just read the law in Arizona. Yes, that law. The one causing protests in the streets of Phoenix, hysteria on cable talk shows and confusion in the courts. The one that empowers state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration law.

The federal law that has been on the books for more than decade … empowers state and local law enforcement to impose immigration law. According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, more than 60 jurisdictions in states across the country have taken advantage of this law.

Florida, Virginia, Oklahoma, Ohio, New Hampshire, California, and even Massachusetts are among the states in which local police are enforcing immigration law.

Read more here.

There is one caveat to the law. Homeland Security must approve each state, but with these states, and more, already having the blessing, it would be political suicide for the Obama regime, and the entire Marxist-democrat party for Arizona to be denied.

Anyway you slice it, it looks like Obama, as usual, has handed his fellow travelers another massive headache by putting his radical ideology over common sense.

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out. 

UPDATED:

An alert reader points out that Congress indeed granted district courts jurisdiction in these cases, so it seems the reporting from Publius Huldah is flawed.

§ 1345 states:

Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.

With that said, there is still the problem with the 1996 law that gives the states the authority to enforce federal immigration law. There are already members of Arizona law enforcement who have went through the proper approval process.

This is still a landmine for the Obama regime.

We do however, apologize for any confusion.

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under In The News, Politics

15 responses to “In Arizona Immigration Ruling, Judge Bolton Has No Jurisdiction, And Other Problems For The Obama Regime. UPDATED

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention In Arizona Imigration Ruling, Judge Bolton Has No Jurisdiction, And Other Problems For The Obama Regime. « A Time For Choosing -- Topsy.com

  2. Bloodhound

    Obama is digging his own grave with his Idiotic Radical UnAmerican Agenda. As the saying goes, “The Bigger they are, the Harder they fall”, does not just mean physical size, it also means positions. I can’t wait till this UnAmerican Piece of Trash Falls and I pray he falls so far he will never see light of day again!

  3. Michael

    I’m sorry to say the author of the first article is wrong. In this circumstance “A State” is referring to a Nation State and not a member of the United States. She’s a lawyer and she should know that. This is not only very well documented, but it was tested very earlier after the United States won its independence. Sorry to rain on the parade.

    • Gary P

      Go back and read Federalist number 81. Among other things Alexander Hamilton writes:

      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…

      He’s not talking “Nation states” he’s talking about a sovereign state within the United States. Remember, the original intent was for each of the several states to pretty much govern themselves, with little interference from the Federal government. I suggest you go back to Federalist 1 and start from there.

      This is in the Constitution, Page 27 in my handy pocket version. It’s crystal clear.

      If you have examples of of anything, please feel free to post links to them.

  4. thank you for this very interesting information

  5. now this is my favorite site

  6. Finally… Someone who knows what their talking about, glad I stopped in. Nice blog BTW! You can be sure I’ll add it to my browse list. Keep up the good work!

  7. Lawyer

    Try again . . . If you look at Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92 (1946) The Supreme Court addressed your issue:
    “Another procedural point urged by the State is that since this is in effect a controversy between the United States and the State of Washington, the United States Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution and the District Court lacked power to try the case. But it is well settled that despite Article 3, Congress can give the district courts jurisdiction to try controversies between a state and the United States.FN3 ”
    Congress has done just that in 28 USCA 1251, 1331, and 1345. 28 USCA 1251 addresses why the case is not the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:
    “(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
    (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
    (1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties; (2) All controversies between the United States and a State; (3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.”
    And 28 USCA 1331, 1345, grants the district courts original jurisdiction.
    Thus, why the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.

    • Gary P

      Case v Bowles is not much of a case to cite here, because the state of Washington is not a party to the suit, only a state commissioner.

      http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?alias=USCASE&cite=327+U.S.+92

      However, good find on 1345.

      Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001345—-000-.html

      Thanks for the info.

      • Lawyer

        Case does apply because while it was a “commissioner” the court treated it as the State being a party to the suit involving an agency of the Federal Government. Regardless, the Supreme Court says very clearly in the holding that: it is WELL SETTLED LAW that the Congress can give jurisdiction to the District Courts.

      • Gary P

        I tend to disagree, because the state was not named, as is the case with the Arizona suit.

        However, with that said, you did indeed provide the law passed by Congress that cedes jurisdiction to inferior courts. Most certainly appreciate you setting the record straight.

        Thanks.

    • Shawn

      But Congress cannot pass a law that conflicts with the US Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Constitution would have to be amended to give the District Courts jurisdiction and I find no such amendment.

      • Gary P

        I had to go back and re-read the Constitution. If you read the entire paragraph, one COULD interpret it to say that Congress could pass a law.

  8. Publius/Huldah

    Re the UPDATE where a portion of Sec. 1345 is quoted:

    The exclusive procedures for amendment of The Constitution are set forth in Article V. Read Article V, and you will see that Congress may not amend The Constitution by simply passing a “law”.

    The CONSTITUTION vests original jurisdiction to hear cases [of federal cognizance] in which a State is a party ONLY in the supreme Court. Congress may not lawfully change that constitutional provision by simply making a “law”.

    Some indoctrinated lawyers and other people, who believe [contrary to Art. V] that Congress can make a law and amend the Constitution, were so outraged by my first paper that I wrote a second one which I hoped that even they would understand. Here it is: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/arizona-lawsuit/

    This is an issue of extreme importance: Are any of you really going to go along with the concept that Congress may properly change The Constitution by simply making a “law”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s