This information could potentially send the nation into a serious Constitutional crisis revolving around the illegal ruling of Judge Susan Bolton in the Arizona immigration case.
Why is it illegal? THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT! She nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the matter!
Read all about it at Conservative Examiner.
There is ample legal footing here for Arizona to deliver a decisive smack-down of Eric Holder's incredibly inept Department of Justice!
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Why then, did she publish this in the Canadian Press or wherever it was? This, if true need to be all over the talking head shows tomorrow.
Constitutionally speaking the federal court system is a creature of the supreme court. when the constitution says supreme court it is talking about the federal court system of which the supreme court is the root.
Several things to bear in mind about this, you guys. First, there is significant disagreement in the legal community concerning the meaning of the Constitution. This comes from a change around the turn of the century in the early 1900s that essentially negated the original intent of the Framers. And, despite lip-service given to the concept by some today, there is very little action to back it up, due to the refusal to deal with the Framers' own words which clearly spell out what they meant by these clauses in the Constitution.
For example, according to the Federalist papers, 'original jurisdiction' meant exclusive jurisdiction--meaning that in certain types of cases ONLY the Supreme Court itself has the authority to issue a ruling.
In addition, if you will read the clause I provided in the Examiner article, the wording contains a key caveat--if a state is sued by a foreign country, the Supreme Court MUST be the only legal entity that rules on it. Mexico filed a brief in our courts against Arizona, making it a party to the lawsuit--a foreign government in essence suing a state.
Many legal eagles believe this is the sure sign that neither Judge
Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has any jurisdiction whatsoever in the case, despite the incessant mantra of modern lawyers who rely more on case law and court precedent than the original intent of the Framers themselves.
One more thing about this I need to mention. There is a decided bias against original intent as described by the Framers themselves in their own words, in the mainstream media, the courts, and government. Thus, Patriots who wish to remain true to the intent of our Framers must often go outside mainstream sources to get their views heard--such as Canada Free Press, which will publish much truth about the U.S. government that won't be published here.
And Bill, don't expect ANY mainstream outlet to talk about this in any form whatsoever. It doesn't fit their agenda.
OK now, EVERY "case" or "cause of action" or whatever you may want to call it has these two extremely simple questions laying in wait to totally ambush them. Since the entire court system is a fraud perpetrated upon us with the sole intent of depriving us of our time and or wealth, these two questions MUST be answered BEFORE any case or cause of action can move forward even one inch, but ONLY if they are asked.
They are: What is the EXACT AMOUNT of fraud that anyone has the right to commit? What is the EXACT AMOUNT of fraud that anyone is obligated to endure? Think about them as long and hard as necessary to come up with the correct answer to each of them.
Post a Comment