perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the
Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself!
---
what do you expect from a black socialist?
In October 2011, documents were released that indicated Holder was
sent memos in regards to Operation Fast and Furious in 2010,
contradicting Holder's sworn testimony before the House Judiciary
Committee in which he said he was unaware of Operation Fast and
Furious until April 2011. In response, Lamar Smith, the chairman of
the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to President Obama, requesting
the appointment of an independent special counsel to investigate
whether Holder committed perjury by lying to the committee while under
oath.
Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has
written in the Washington Times that, "It is time for Mr. Holder to
go." because of his role in Operation Operation Fast and Furious.
Perry stated that, "America simply cannot tolerate an attorney general
who arms the very criminals he is supposed to protect us from".
On Jan 16, 3:02 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ** **
>
> in a special article in the Canada Free
> Press<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983>
> ****
> Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer**** ONLY the US Supreme Court has
> Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial****
>
> [image: Author]****
>
> *- Publius Huldah* Thursday, July 29, 2010
> | *Print friendly*<http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/25983>|
> *Email Us*<lett...@canadafreepress.com?subject=Dear%20Canada%20Free%20Press>
> ****
>
> 57 <http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983> ****
> ------------------------------
>
> 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<http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/arizona_rul...>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<http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed81.htm>(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<http://openjurist.org/426/us/394/kerr-v-united-states-district-court-...>),
> 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<http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/search/display.html?terms=mand...>
> .****
>
> 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 <http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/> ****
>
> *Publius Huldah*
> Most recent columns<http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/members/25983/Publius%20Huldah/>
> ****
>
> Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA. She writes
> on the U.S. Constitution and posts her papers at publiushuldah.wordpress.com
> Before getting a law degree, she got a degree in philosophy where she
> specialized in political philosophy and epistemology (theories of
> knowledge).
>
> Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788
> by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the
> proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it,
> Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S.
> Constitution. She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal
> courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted
> their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution. ****
>
> Publius can be reached at:
> Publiushul...@twlakes.net<Publiushul...@twlakes.net?bcc=lett...@canadafreepress.com>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment