Posts Tagged ‘immigration law’

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days?

September 6, 2010

Very interesting …either they don’t or can’t read or worse just ignore or more likely think they are above the Constitution…..  Another “Must Read
This was sent to me by a fellow Oath Keeper, who lives in Maine near the Canadian border.

U.S. Constitution saves the day! Why won’t the feds read the constitution before they file a lawsuit against a sovereign state?

Explosive evidence shows ruling of AZ judge illegal…

July 31, 10:07 AM Conservative Examiner Anthony G. Martin

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.

(Daniel Bayer/CBS News via Getty Images)
The inept U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press.  Her argument states in part, “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 of our Constitution 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.”

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled.  As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.

This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously.  The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the Federal Government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, 115 bodies recovered in AZ entry routes, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.

This is as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.

The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.

This missive must be circulated around the USA; we must all get involved this is OUR case too.

“The law is reason free from passion.” Aristotle

WARNING — Freedom To Carry Doesn’t Start Until July 29

June 27, 2010

Constitutional Carry (also called Freedom To Carry or Vermont-style carry) doesn’t begin until July 29, 2010. Terrible news reporting has given many people the mistaken impression that you no longer need a government permission slip to carry a sidearm discreetly. You will be arrested and convicted if you try that now and are found. You MUST wait until the law takes effect on the same day as SB 1070, the illegal-immigration bill (what the “news” media calls the harsh new controversial immigration law).

Arizona will be under an enormous spotlight at that time due to the effort to halt illegal immigration by law. If not for that bill, we would be under the spotlight for daring to let law-abiding citizens exercise the right to keep and bear arms without prior government permission and taxation (and multiple tests, applications, classes, fingerprints, criminal-database listings, approvals, plastic-coated permission slips and expiration dates).

That government version of “rights” dissolves on July 29, and the media insanity it would normally attract will be overlooked entirely as the pack media aims solely at efforts to halt the invasion the state faces at its southern border. Opponents call invasion resistance “racism,” because most of the invaders are of one recognizable race, a foolish idea when you think about it. All too often, people who charge racism are themselves the racists. Arizona has nothing to do with the millions who decided to invade our nation.

A confidential police source reveals that law-enforcement officials expect “Amateur Hour” when the new law takes effect, with bozos waving guns around and generally acting stupidly with their new-found rights. Prove them wrong. Act as responsibly with discreet carry as the state has been with open carry, in effect since statehood in 1912.

Note that the olden concealed-carry law, with all its baggage and costs, remains in full effect. You can still take the classes, get the permission slip, and use it for state-to-state reciprocity, shopping without a NICS background check (since you’re permanently monitored in the criminal databases), and eat in restaurants that serve alcohol, if the restaurant has posted no civil-rights-denial signs to keep your kind out, and you don’t drink while there.

Newcomers to discreet carry (the term “concealed” carry is a derogatory slap that implies something to hide and illicit behavior, and hence is disdained) should remember these–

Gun-safety rules for self defense:

1. If you ever shoot a person in self defense you must then defend yourself against execution for murder.

2. When you drop the hammer you are cashing in your life savings
for your lawyer’s retainer. Avoid this unless your life depends on it.

3. It’s always better to avoid a gunfight than to win one.

4. If innocent life doesn’t immediately depend on it, don’t shoot. And if it does, don’t miss.

5. If you draw, show or mention your gun in the wrong way or at the wrong time, you go to prison for a long time, after enormous hassle and your life savings are depleted.

Learn the rest — take an Arizona class.
And get The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide
http://www.gunlaws.com/agog.htm
(includes an update on the new law.)


%d bloggers like this: