Article Image
News Link • Immigration

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the (SB1070) Trial

• Canada Free Press via e-mail
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

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

The reason that Government doesn't differentiate between us and the individual Social Security entity/trust/agreement/account that has a name just like ours, and has the number that we call our Social Security Number is that they would blow this thing higher than up.

Notice in this article that government talks about "Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity." Why, when we are identified by a SSN, don't they talk about us as "John J. Doe, holder of Social Security account numbered xxx-xx-xxxx, in his Official Capacity - or private capacity?

Are they afraid that we might start to find out that most of their excuses for applying all kinds of laws to us, that shouldn't be constitutionally applied to us, are being applied to a Social Security Entity that has a name like ours, because we ignorantly thought the number was our number, and then told them so in court or on other Government paperwork? We are taking the rap that they have handed out to a Social Security account with a name almost like ours.

WE DO NOT HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. THAT NUMBER APPLIES TO A SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT THAT HAS A NAME ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE OURS. THEY IDENTIFIED THE WRONG PERSON/ENTITY WHEN THEY IDENTIFIED A HUMAN BEING AS HAVING A SSN. WHY DO WE KEEP AGREEING WITH THEM?


Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Part of the way that Government gets around Other Constitutional requirements is to use the one that says that we are free to contract.

Are the State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, allowed by law or Constitution to freely contract with a Federal District Judge?



Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: