Cuccinelli Verdict in VA and Other Some Interesting Articles on Immigration and Amnesty

 Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Arizona Immigration Law

Amnesty Memo… And Some Other Interesting Twist and Turns

Virginia Legal Opinion Supports Checks of Immigration Status

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images). Obama Attorney-General Eric Holder.

In a follow-up analysis of the now-infamous secret memo indicating that the Obama Administration intends to conduct a program of back door amnesty for illegal aliens without approval from Congress, the Washington Examiner exposes the end-game for what it is, despite protests to the contrary from the Administration.

When the secret memo was unexpectedly made public last week, the Administration immediately released a clarification attempting to portray the information as mere 'discussion' rather than official policy.

But, as Washington Examiner reports, the memo has all the markings of something far beyond mere discussion and debate.  The Administration wants to implement back door amnesty to multi-millions of illegal aliens without having to go through the process of Congressional approval:

"Congress demurred from taking up President Obama's immigration reform because voters were angry enough with Obamacare's passage. But a recently released memo from U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services officials reveals the contempt with which the administration holds these voters. Outlining ways in which the government can provide "relief" to illegal immigrants, the memo suggests delaying deportation for some (perhaps even indefinitely) or granting green cards to others. A spokesman for the agency told the Associated Press that this document shouldn't be "equated with official action or policy," and represented only "deliberation and exchange of ideas." But that's a hard sell: This memo has all the hallmarks of the administration's refusal to pursue its policy agenda in an open and democratic way."

This would also explain the Obama Administration's vehement, almost vengeful, opposition to Arizona's new illegal alien law, which does nothing but mirror federal law.  The Administration is deathly afraid that Arizona will do what it has steadfastly refused to do--enforce the law.

Another reason for the vendetta against Arizona is exposed by the Washington Examiner:

"The memo sheds light on why the Justice Department finds Arizona's immigration law so odious. The law, popularly passed by the state Legislature and signed into law by the governor, is an effort to address the flow of illegal immigrants into the state by allowing Arizona police officers to detain illegal immigrants. But the police are not empowered to deport the illegals -- instead, the detainees are referred to the federal government. This would create a record of the illegal immigrants the administration refuses to deport, making transparent the White House's efforts to undermine current immigration law."

Thus, not only is it apparent that the DOJ's lawsuit is not driven by any concern whatsoever for 'federal law,' but the contention of the Obama apologists that this memo 'only addresses kinks in the process of legal immigration' is patently false.  The lawsuit is intended to prevent Arizona from discovering and making public the extent to which the Administration has violated federal law on illegal aliens.

This is purely about amnesty for illegal aliens prior to an election, no matter which way you cut it.

 

KUHNER: Should Arizona secede?

Choice between devolution and dissolution may be inevitable

Judicial activism is pushing America to the breaking point. This week, a federal judge blocked key provisions of Arizona's immigration law, thwarting the will of the people. The decision was ominous and will reverberate for years to come.

Judge Susan Bolton, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, is a liberal elitist who believes judicial imperialism trumps democracy. Her ruling states that local police cannot check the immigration status of people arrested or stopped for violations of the law. In her view, that would amount to an abuse of civil liberties and unduly burden the federal immigration system. She also stipulated that residents cannot be required to carry proof of legal status.

Her decision strikes at the very heart of the Arizona law, S.B. 1070. Supported by President Obama's Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union, the ruling sets the stage for a protracted legal battle. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vows to appeal the ruling - all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. In the meantime, the people of Arizona - and America - will continue to endure the onslaught of illegal immigration.

Mr. Obama's decision to sue Arizona is a betrayal of his constitutional oath to secure our porous border. The administration's spin is that the "border has never been more secure." It points to an influx of Border Patrol agents and more resources devoted to enforcement technology. Yet the reality remains: Aliens continue to cross every day. Arizona is home to more than a half-million illegal immigrants. Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of America. Mexican drug lords order contract killings on Arizona sheriffs. Violent crime is pervasive. Instead of helping the people in need of protection, Mr. Obama is in effect siding with the lawbreakers.

Mr. Obama is playing racial politics with the Arizona law. He is deliberately inflaming ethnic tensions, falsely portraying the law as leading to a repressive police state for Hispanics. Yet the law deliberately bans racial profiling; a Hispanic could not be asked to show residency papers when having an ice cream with his kids, as the president falsely asserted. This is race-baiting and fear-mongering at its worst.

The administration and congressional Democrats are making a strategic calculation. They think the Arizona law may be popular in the short term, not just in the state but across the country, but they are convinced that in the long term, the law will backfire on Republicans - especially with the surging Hispanic voting bloc. Mr. Obama thinks he can aggressively court the Latino vote by demonizing Arizona. This is classic Saul Alinsky-style radicalism: the politics of divide and conquer, pitting races and classes against one another in the service of state power.

The ruling furthers Mr. Obama's radical agenda. Judge Bolton's decision essentially says America cannot protect its national sovereignty. This is tantamount to an open invitation for illegal immigrants to come at will and with impunity. America is thus no longer a real nation-state capable of defending its geographical boundaries, cultural identity and national interests. Instead, it is being reduced to a colony of the new world order - one marked by economic globalization, transnational corporatism, supranational bodies and the erosion of meaningful borders. The liberal ruling class wants to eradicate the nation-state in order to achieve its globalist-socialist utopia. This is why it despises America's federal immigration laws and refuses to uphold them.

The ruling also prevents the state from defending itself; it is unilaterally disarming the people of Arizona in the face of a dangerous enemy. The federal government has shown repeatedly that it is unable and unwilling to secure the border. The Arizona law has the overwhelming support (70 percent) of Arizonans (as well as Americans). It is the collective expression of the people's will to defend their homes, property and lives from criminals. It is the democratic embodiment of securing their God-given rights to life, liberty and self-government.

Yet Judge Bolton and the Obama administration are making a neo-aristocratic argument: Leftist judges - elitist activists in black robes - override democratic legitimacy. This is a form of soft authoritarianism.

In response to a controversial 1832 ruling by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, President Andrew Jackson reputedly said: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Mrs. Brewer should take a page from Old Hickory's playbook: Judge Bolton has made her decision, now let her enforce it.

The Arizona governor should stand on the bedrock principles of states' rights and democratic self-government and insist that S.B. 1070 go into effect despite the federal ban. This would set up a constitutional showdown between Mrs. Brewer and Mr. Obama, Arizona and Washington. What would the Justice Department do: carry Mrs. Breweroff in handcuffs and throw her in prison? In other words, the people of Arizona should engage in peaceful civil disobedience.

For too long, liberals have successfully used the courts to impose radical social engineering upon a recalcitrant population. Abortion, homosexual marriage, pornography, racial quotas, affirmative action, a ban on public school prayer - all of these issues have been imposed by an imperial judiciary against the wishes of the majority. The Arizona law is the reassertion of democratic self-rule against the federal leviathan.

Arizona is where the old republic will stand or fall. It is showdown at high noon. Either America returns to its constitutional system based on real federalism, states' rights, individual liberty and decentralized power, or it continues to slide toward the darkness of a socialist superstate. Washington - with its swollen bureaucracy, imperial arrogance, rampant corruption and dangerous detachment from ordinary citizens - is despised and distrusted by many Americans. A secession of the heart is taking place - a profound alienation from the liberal ruling class.

In the future, many states - including Arizona - may decide they have no other option but to break away from the union. The choice is becoming starkly apparent: devolution or dissolution.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of the "Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from 5 to 7 p.m.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

This is the link to send Judge Bolton an email:  http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/guestbook.nsf/comment

Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

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.

has Judge Susan R. Bolton 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.

7 Latin Nations Join Mexican Suit vs. AZ -  Really?  We  are allowing the country who allows its citizens to violate our laws and borders sue us as well as other foreign countries? Brings to mind the Forrest Gump adage “Stupid Is As Stupid Does”!