Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer

Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer

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

5 Comments

4 years 20 weeks ago, 3:14 PM

Lyle Hutchins 1

Lyle Hutchins 1's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1261
Join Date:
Feb 2009
Location:
Cee-more, Ok., United States
Case Against Arizona

Sam I sent this to Gov Jan, 2 times!!!!!
She, I am sure already knows this info. If not She knows now.
Our Framers were Inspired Men, they anticipated all sorts of stuff.
As I have been on GunsLot, I have read more QUOTES from these GREAT MEN ! They wrote directly to all of us in this day and time! This Site is a Site for Real Patriots! Bar None!
It is indeed a privilege to be part of This Site!!!!
May God through The Framers, embrace the Great State of Arizona!!
and expel all those who tend to do harm to this State, and The United States of America. We are not yet, by far, ready to lie down to a Mongrel the likes of Obama, Policy, Read, and their followers. The Constitution, is more alive than the Left realizes.
Our Framers were Men of God and indeed inspired by our Creator!
Not Preaching, but telling it, like it is!

Lyle

Lyle Hutchinson
2 years 25 weeks ago, 10:23 AM

Saint J.M. Browning

Saint J.M. Browning's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
3561
Join Date:
Feb 2011
Location:
The Colony, Texas, United States
AZ immigration law

SCOTUS only upholds one of the 4 challenged provisions:

http://oversight.house.gov/committee-members/

Kind of toothless now, if you ask me. And I can't see how the Justices can rule that requiring to show proof of citizenship for employment is unconstitutional. Isn't that already a law (I-9?) So how a State including a redundancy to prevent lack of enforcement on a Federal level be unconstitutional?

"I don't think Hank done it this way" - Waylon
2 years 25 weeks ago, 6:18 PM

coppertop

coppertop's picture

Rank:
Major General
Points:
471
Join Date:
Apr 2012
Location:
Bella Vista, AR, United States

Does anyone want to take bets on how the Obamacare decision will go?

2 years 24 weeks ago, 5:27 AM

tallguy007

tallguy007's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant General
Points:
1991
Join Date:
Aug 2010
Location:
yavin, outer rim, American Samoa
shoot it down

sick of all the $$$$ they throw out and do not help the real people!!!!!

DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR
2 years 25 weeks ago, 7:38 PM

daisycutter

daisycutter's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
4738
Join Date:
Jul 2009
Location:
Arkansas

provisions are constitutional.
The justices are human therefore politically aware. Only Mr. Spock would be able to render a purely logical decision.
They did what they did, IMHO, to appease the mexicans and keep the peace.
Reality is a bitch.

iyaoyas
samD's picture
Posted by: samD
4 years 20 weeks ago
Views:
776
Comments:
5

Rating Overview

This text will be replaced

Recent Activity