Well, hush my mouth! did that Judge have standing?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"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." borrowed from serr8d

I wonder if this may have any bearing in the AZ law that

Judge Bolton is reviewing? If the state is a party in a lawsuit,

does it go to federal court or the Supreme Court. If it is

the latter, that federal judge Bolton nor Eric Holder have any

standing against the AZ immigration law until it is filed in the

Supreme Court. I'll bet you they knew that all along. another

shell game.

[Mike.357]

I dunno about this stuff, but I do wish they would make it open season on people coming across the border illegally. As politically incorrect as that sounds.

We ought to have armed troops there dealing with this invasion. But noooooooo we have to be off fighting Obama's war in a country that has a very big history of bringing super powers to their knees.

Sorry that was way OT.

If the stakes were not so high the chess match between AZ and Holder would be worthy of PPV

[Oh Shoot]

I dunno about this stuff, but I do wish they would make it open season on people coming across the border illegally. As politically incorrect as that sounds.

We ought to have armed troops there dealing with this invasion. But noooooooo we have to be off fighting Obama's war in a country that has a very big history of bringing super powers to their knees.

Sorry that was way OT....

Oh, I don't think it necessarily is, but rather, a good comparison of what we're NOT doing with our military might.

The whole mideast deployment is a travesty as bad as Vietnam, only fortunately involving much fewer American dead. But history will judge it as just as big a folly, and attribute it mostly to W's erection over "having to do SOMEthing BIG" after 9/11.

Iraq will be a dictatorship/military junta in a decade or less after we leave, and as you intimate, Afghanistan will continue to be a the Graveyard of Empires, an 18th century culture with AKs.

It won't change life over there one bit when we quit spending a bazillion a month over there to make us "safe at home" when we won't spend a fraction of that a month to protect our own borders here at home.

- OS

Edited August 1, 2010 by OhShoot

[Kegger]

But noooooooo we have to be off fighting Obama's war in a country that has a very big history of bringing super powers to their knees.

That particular sentence makes about as much sense as Obama blaming every one of his wrongs on Bush. The Afghan war kicked off under Bush. And as much as I think we need to bring our guys home, they're my brothers, literally and figuratively. So don't blame it on the guy who inherited it, regardless of how anyone feels about him.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That particular sentence makes about as much sense as Obama blaming every one of his wrongs on Bush. The Afghan war kicked off under Bush. And as much as I think we need to bring our guys home, they're my brothers, literally and figuratively. So don't blame it on the guy who inherited it, regardless of how anyone feels about him.

I have to agree with that. Neither should be left with blaming Bush or Obama.

It should just be done with extreme prejudice and complete so they can

come home. We might be needing them here. I know their families do.

[Guest jackdm3]

*This is not to argue with anyone here*

I thought O said something like he would bring all troops out in 18 months of his swearing in. Wasn't that last month?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I dunno about this stuff, but I do wish they would make it open season on people coming across the border illegally. As politically incorrect as that sounds.

We ought to have armed troops there dealing with this invasion. But noooooooo we have to be off fighting Obama's war in a country that has a very big history of bringing super powers to their knees.

Sorry that was way OT.

If the stakes were not so high the chess match between AZ and Holder would be worthy of PPV

Well, if the Constitution says it and the administration does something else,

where does AZ stand, in the big scheme of things? I think it may lead to a

constitutional crisis, if it isn't dealt with by the proper authority. Maybe

Obama and Holder know they can't win at the level of SCOTUS and are

pitching huge buffalo chips. If you will recall, the messiah slammed the

SCOTUS at his state of the dictator speech. Look what it got him.

Justice Kennedy said he will postpone retirement until after 2012.

Obama thinks he is FDR, sometimes, when he isn't thinking he is Hugo

Chavez or Achmadiditinhispants.

Trying to get it back OT:D

[ttocswob]

"In all Cases...in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

The Supreme Court is the only court having jurisdiction over a Fed vs. State case. Both Judge Susan Bolton and Atty. Gen. Eric Holder should be removed from office and disbarred for their actions in this case.

[TNRobocop]

So why doesn't AZ just ignore the ruling?

I wondered what would happen anyway if a state ingored a federal judge/court other than the Supreme Court?

What realistically would the federal .gov do?

I recall when the 101st Abn Div was sent to Little Rock, AR and all that, but except for the power of the purse strings, such as cutting federal funds for highways and such for not lowering drinking ages and speed limits, technically the feds are toothless.

But I am reading the Federalist Papers and a history book written for patriots at the moment so that clouds my thinking I guess.

[JayC]

States have a lot more power than they're willing to admit to... Ignoring a judge's order is only the start of things a legislature could do to foul up the system... Think bigger... For example, where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal Government to claim land? What are the limitations on that power (military bases and post offices)...

So why doesn't AZ just ignore the ruling?

I wondered what would happen anyway if a state ingored a federal judge/court other than the Supreme Court?

What realistically would the federal .gov do?

I recall when the 101st Abn Div was sent to Little Rock, AR and all that, but except for the power of the purse strings, such as cutting federal funds for highways and such for not lowering drinking ages and speed limits, technically the feds are toothless.

But I am reading the Federalist Papers and a history book written for patriots at the moment so that clouds my thinking I guess.

[timcalhoun]

States have a lot more power than they're willing to admit to... Ignoring a judge's order is only the start of things a legislature could do to foul up the system... Think bigger... For example, where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal Government to claim land? What are the limitations on that power (military bases and post offices)...

And where in that constitution is it that gave Lincoln the power to wage war against states that want to secede? Once you join the baseball team you can never get out!!!!! I have always wondered what rule of law he used to justify that? And I was born in PA. :-)

Sorry I don't want to hijack the thread.

Edited August 2, 2010 by timcalhoun

[Guest HvyMtl]

Interesting thought, but no.

United States federal courts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Federal Court Concepts

Read up. Effectively, Congress has the authority to grant Federal Courts the jurisdiction, or their "right" to hear a case, through Article III of the Constitution. In this case it is a "Federal Question," and therefore meets the jurisdiction requirements to be heard in this Court.

Interesting quote from Wiki: "Article III requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. In theory, Congress could eliminate the entire federal judiciary except for the Supreme Court, although the 1st Congress established a system of lower federal courts through the Judiciary Act of 1789."

Here is Article III: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III

Article III, Section 2 is the meat of what the OP was getting at: "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, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Here is the gist of it: Congress granted the power to the lower courts to have jurisdiction as Art 3, Sec 2 states. And, in this situation, it is long established you have to start at the lowest court and move upwards to the Supreme Court. Otherwise all cases (literally thousands of cases) where a State is a plaintiff or defendant, would have to be heard by one court. Which would deny justice.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Not when a state is a party to a suit, as specifically stated in my

OP. when the state is sued by the federal government, there is

no lower court to go to. The federal court system was established

as subordinate to the US Supreme Court. The clause states the

Supreme Court is the arbiter in cases like this, not a subordinate

court.

[Mike.357]

That particular sentence makes about as much sense as Obama blaming every one of his wrongs on Bush. The Afghan war kicked off under Bush. And as much as I think we need to bring our guys home, they're my brothers, literally and figuratively. So don't blame it on the guy who inherited it, regardless of how anyone feels about him.

First so you know I would never disrespect those that wear our country's uniform. The people who make policy of how the war is prosecuted are not giving you guys a chance to win over there. Second I blame it on Obama soley because I have heard him say that Afghanistan should be where we put our efforts. He wants you guys over there but then is a key figure in how the was is fought or not allowed to be fought.

So yes I do blame the Big O for what is going on over there now.

I was never a fan of King Geo. II. either. OS's comments on why we went there are correct.

IMHO this country has not had a great leader since JFK.

[Mike.357]

Well, if the Constitution says it and the administration does something else,

where does AZ stand, in the big scheme of things? I think it may lead to a

constitutional crisis, if it isn't dealt with by the proper authority. Maybe

Obama and Holder know they can't win at the level of SCOTUS and are

pitching huge buffalo chips. If you will recall, the messiah slammed the

SCOTUS at his state of the dictator speech. Look what it got him.

Justice Kennedy said he will postpone retirement until after 2012.

Obama thinks he is FDR, sometimes, when he isn't thinking he is Hugo

Chavez or Achmadiditinhispants.

Trying to get it back OT:D

Arizona should enforce the law as it was passed by their gov't. It is clearly a Federal law that was replicated by AZ. How does the Federal gov't pick and choose which laws it wants to enforce? I do not see how AZ can lose this in court.

On top of that what would the Fed's do to force the issue? Send troops to make sure our borders aren't protected? Something clearly has to be done to stop the invasion of illegals immigrants.

Obama should have been a teacher not a president.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Ok. Let me try again. Congress, by authority of the Constitution, Article III, Section 2 has the power to create the Federal Courts. This includes what Jurisdiction these courts have...

This is Codified (written into law) under Title 28 of the United States Code. Jurisdiction is handled under Chapter 85.

United States Code: Title 28,CHAPTER 85—DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION | LII / Legal Information Institute

As I said earlier, a Federal Law question is center to the case, and would place the jurisdiction in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. 85 § 1331 Federal Question

However, BY DEFAULT, 28 U.S.C. § 1345 The United States is the PLAINTIFF. Therefore, District Court Jurisdiction is automatic.

Here is the Court's injunction order:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100729_ARIZONA_DOC.pdf

Very interesting read. Going through it right now.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You are correct. Thank you:D What it appears to be is that for them to sue

the state of AZ, after reading all those subchapters they still need to do this

process again. Is that right?

Regardless, it will get appealed to circuit, then SCOTUS.

BTW, thanks for the patience:D

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

First so you know I would never disrespect those that wear our country's uniform. The people who make policy of how the war is prosecuted are not giving you guys a chance to win over there. Second I blame it on Obama soley because I have heard him say that Afghanistan should be where we put our efforts. He wants you guys over there but then is a key figure in how the was is fought or not allowed to be fought.

So yes I do blame the Big O for what is going on over there now.

I was never a fan of King Geo. II. either. OS's comments on why we went there are correct.

IMHO this country has not had a great leader since JFK. =

OUCH...I wont touch that.

I do agree with Kegger about Assandsandland, but that and Iraq are for a different time and place.

For now I think we all agree we gotta stop the darn ILLegals from coming in here and if the Feds wont do it then someone HAS to. If we dont we may as well tear down the border stations and split Mexico up so Barry can have his 57 states again.

I think that eventually SCOTUS will have to force the Feds to enforce the laws or let the states do so themselves. But the Lord only knows how long that could take.

And just what will we all do if Barry does an "elections have consequences" Executive Order making all of those here citizens ??????????????

He is a snarky bustard and I would not put it past him and his cronies to do such a thing.

If he does that I may move to Mexico....it will be empty pretty quick and I hear they have some nice beaches there.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Seriously, read the Court Order. Very interesting.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100729_ARIZONA_DOC.pdf

Opinions? What do you think will be overturned by appeal?

What do you think sticks?

Yes, it has to go thru the "motions" District, Appellant, then SCOTUS.

Imagine the backlog if they limited lawsuits with States as Defendants to SCOTUS only...

Sorry, I couldn't explain it well. Poor brain don't work like it should.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Seriously, read the Court Order. Very interesting.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100729_ARIZONA_DOC.pdf

Opinions? What do you think will be overturned by appeal?

What do you think sticks?

Yes, it has to go thru the "motions" District, Appellant, then SCOTUS.

Imagine the backlog if they limited lawsuits with States as Defendants to SCOTUS only...

Sorry, I couldn't explain it well. Poor brain don't work like it should.

No, I didn't put my brain in gear on your first post.

Anyway, the Federal government has a constitutional

mandate to protect the border from invasion, which is obviously not being done, and is a direct violation of said

document. Before anyone says "Well, Reagan did it",

remember Obama made this an issue with his assertion

of getting "Comprehensive Immigration Reform".

The only reform is to get rid of this communist President.

You enforce a law while attempting to change it. This

has been nothing more than a political exchange at AZ's

expense.

How do you say "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

This on top of everything else.

Actually, I think it will all get in favor of AZ if this gets to the SCOTUS

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest HvyMtl]

Hmm. Actually, the ones to blame are the politicians and companies who blocked the enforcement of the 1986 act. Had the enforcement occurred, the majority of illegal immigration hiring companies would have been hit hard with fines, and stopped hiring. FYI: The pork council discussed in another thread where they are lobbying for more visas and amnesty? Yeah, those guys are part who fought the enforcement...

And I agree O has now "owned" it for calling for reforms.

Have you read the court ruling yet?