U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-31-2010, 01:59 PM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,687,743 times
Reputation: 3010

Advertisements

Explosive new evidence shows ruling of AZ judge illegal

Quote:
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.
If this argument has merit....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2010, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Phoenix,Arizona
3,717 posts, read 4,494,215 times
Reputation: 3615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
Well if it does looks like it should bypass the 9th Circuit
and go right to the Supreme Court

The 9th circuit on Friday has case scheduled for a hearing during the first week in November.

State Sen. Russell Pearce, author of the law, said he foresaw a protracted legal fight from the beginning.
"I wrote it to go to the Supreme Court," he said before the ruling came down. "I'm begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court. We will win in a 5-4 decision and finally settle this problem."
He added, "My message to the judge, is uphold the Constitution. Uphold states' rights. This is a battle of epic proportions. This is the states versus the central government."


Court denies request for expedited hearing on Arizona immigration law - CNN.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 02:50 PM
 
4,628 posts, read 9,027,023 times
Reputation: 4225
Explosive new evidence? I don't think so. It's par for the course in law, other than being a hot-button issue.

SB1070 allows for warrantless searches, BTW. Does that not frighten you? That's pretty danged scary in my book. I'm not saying the intent of 1070 was wrong, but it is poorly written.

Your constitutional lawyer there apparently did not read Judge Bolton's ruling on the Feds' Motion for Temporary Injunction, neither apparently did Senator Pearce. In part:

"On July 6, 2010, the United States filed a Complaint with this Court challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 1070, and it also filed a Motion requesting that the Court issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070 until the Court can make a final determination as to its constitutionality.

While Section 1 of S.B. 1070 provides a statement of the Act’s intent and purpose, it does not create a single and unified statutory scheme incapable of careful provision by provision analysis. The Court cannot enjoin a purpose; the Arizona Legislature is free to express its viewpoint and intention as it wishes, and Section 1 has no operative function. However, this is not to say that Section 1 is irrelevant. The expression of the Legislature’s intent provides context and backdrop for the functional enactments of S.B. 1070, and the Court considers it in this capacity as it analyzes the other provisions of the law.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting in part and denying in part the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 27)."

It will not bypass the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Read the entire ruling and please tell me where Judge Bolton erred so egregiously, and why you think she is against this law, which she clearly is not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 03:05 PM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,959,040 times
Reputation: 1806
This is an anonymous poster, claiming to be a constitution lawyer, on a Canadian site that is built on user contributed material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 03:12 PM
 
30,881 posts, read 24,210,085 times
Reputation: 17772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Siete View Post
This is an anonymous poster, claiming to be a constitution lawyer, on a Canadian site that is built on user contributed material.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 03:15 PM
 
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
3,858 posts, read 5,959,040 times
Reputation: 1806
If this were true then why didn't Brewer & Arizona bring up this jurisdiction defense?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 03:29 PM
 
3,951 posts, read 3,582,217 times
Reputation: 1270
I read the article and I still don't know. It's hard to say because laws and clauses, yada, yada, yada are all over the place, so you don't know if you got anything right. I think that lawyers don't always know the law completely and I think that could be simple unavoidable human error (we can't retain everything we read) or bad practice. The wording of The Constitution is what always gets people.

I wish this were true, but it is going to take some reading to figure out what is really going on with this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 08:17 PM
 
349 posts, read 393,999 times
Reputation: 161
I highly doubt this was discovered by a Constitutional attorney.

All this states is that the Supreme Court may hear facts about cases with a state as the party. Normally, the Court only hears appeals and chooses which cases it will review. If the Court had to hear all cases and be the finder of facts when a State was party to a suit, then the case load would be overwhelming and unbearable.

This is nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 10:11 PM
 
1,830 posts, read 4,648,993 times
Reputation: 1938
ROFLMAO. If the writer is really an attorney(not), she missed the first day of law school. Original jurisdiction is not synonymous with exclusive jurisdiction.

Think how backed up the Supreme Court would be if it was required to hear on the trial level every case that had a state as a party.

The faux attorney apparently is not familiar with the U.S. Code. Here's an interesting section that might clarify the matter for her:
Quote:
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 81 > § 1251

§ 1251. Original jurisdiction
(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.
In other words, the Supreme Court could have heard the case as a case of first impression if the DOJ had chosen to go that route. But there was no requirement to do so. They'll hear it on appeal, where it won't take up as much of their time as a trial would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2010, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Pasadena
7,413 posts, read 7,826,258 times
Reputation: 1802
Oh yeah, this argument is going to get real traction Want to try again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top