TRUTH IN POLITICS

Looking at the True Picture

In the reading of the article by Publius Huldah I confirmed my own belief that only the Supreme Court of the United States has the right to try any case that would or could be brought against the State of Arizona. Her research into this matter is in depth and with factual documentation to back it up.

I have taken license to reprint part of it for all who read my blog to be privy, as a furtherance of information for the public consumption. It is important for all to see how the Obama administration is usurping the authority of our Constitution, making a mockery of all the laws of our land. It is time for the citizens of this country to take back what is rightfully theirs and stand up for not only their rights, but the rights of all their neighbors.

It is a sad day in the life of this country that was founded on liberty and freedom to see our system of government so abused by a President that has no thought as to the outcome of it all. Such egoism should not go unchallenged by the populace of this great nation for which so many have fought, bled and died. The following is a small portion of that article, that spells out the guidlines of which court has jurisdiction:

Only Supreme Court Has Authority to Hear Case Against Any State, Including Arizona
By: Publius Huldah.

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. It is certain that only a few in Congress have even heard of 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… [Emphasis added]

“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:
The State of Arizona; Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official capacity, defendants.

See where it says, “State of Arizona”?  THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court 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…[italics in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped, by the Constitution, of jurisdiction to hear it.

2.  So!  Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.

3. Now, let us examine a hurdle before us:  For a very long time, as PH continually points out, Congress and the federal courts have ignored the Constitution.  Congress has made innumerable laws which exceed the scope of the legislative powers delegated to it, and the supreme Court has applauded such usurpations!

But respecting the judicial power of the federal courts, Congress has made a law which directly contradicts Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 of Our Constitution! That pretended law is 28 USC § 1251:
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.  [emphasis added].

Do you see what this pretended “law” purports to do?  It purports to say that lawsuits against States can be tried in federal district courts!

But Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says that in “ALL” Cases in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court “SHALL” have original jurisdiction (i.e., the supreme Court is to conduct the trial).  In Our Constitution, We delegated to the supreme Court alone the authority to conduct the trials of cases in which States are a party.  We most manifestly did NOT grant that power to inferior tribunals.  And Congress may not alter, by any pretended “law”, Our grant of power which was to the supreme Court alone.

The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution to the People and to induce them to ratify it.  For this reason, the Federalist is the most authoritative commentary we have on the original intent of the Constitution.  The States understood, before their delegations ratified the Constitution, that if they were ever sued by the new federal government, their case would be tried before the supreme Court! As noted above, Hamilton said, respecting suits against States:

…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…

Congress may not unilaterally change the rules after the fact!
Article V sets forth the procedures for amending the Constitution.  Note that the 11th Amendment (ratified 1795) was ratified to reduce the Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 1 Jurisdiction of the federal courts.  If  it is desired to extend to federal district courts the judicial Power to preside over cases in which a State is a party, then it can only be done by constitutional amendment.

In Federalist No. 78 (10 para), Alexander Hamilton says:
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. [emphasis added]
Congress may not amend Our Constitution by making a “law”.  Any such pretended “law” is void.

4. 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 herself! 

 

I read this piece in a recent e-mail and thought it would be educational for all to read so I have posted it in my blog. Credit for the speech goes to Newt Gingrich, but I think the message it conveys is to the point and correct in all aspects. I would encouragea everyone to reand it, remember it and heed it.

 

No Mosque at 9-11 Ground Zero                                   By:  Newt Gingrich
One of our biggest mistakes in the aftermath of 9/11 was naming our response to the attacks "the war on terror" instead of accurately identifying radical Islamists (and the underlying ideology of radical
Islamism) as the target of our campaign.  This mistake has led to endless confusion about the nature of the ideological and material threat facing the civilized world and the scale of the response that is appropriate.

Radical Islamism is more than simply a religious belief.  It is a comprehensive political, economic, and religious movement that seeks to impose Sharia -- Islamic law -- upon all aspects of global society.

Many Muslims see Sharia as simply a reference point for their personal code of conduct.  They recognize the distinction between their personal beliefs and the laws that govern all people of all faiths.

For the radical Islamist, however, this distinction does not exist. Radical Islamists see politics and religion as inseparable in a way it is difficult for Americans to understand.  Radical Islamists assert Sharia's supremacy over the freely legislated laws and values of the countries they live in and see it as their sacred duty to achieve this totalitarian supremacy in practice.

Some radical Islamists use terrorism as a tactic to impose Sharia but others use non-violent methods -- a cultural, political, and legal jihad that seeks the same totalitarian goal even while claiming to repudiate violence.  Thus, the term "war on terrorism" is far too narrow a framework in which to think about the war in which we are engaged against the radical Islamists.

Sharia and Western Civilization

Sharia law is used in many Muslim countries to justify shocking acts of barbarity including stoning, the execution of homosexuals, and the subjugation of women.  Sharia does not permit freedom of conscience; it prohibits Muslims from renouncing their Islamic faith or converting to
another religion.

Sharia does not support religious liberty; it treats non-Muslims as inferior and does not accord them the same protections as Muslims.  In these and other instances, Sharia is explicitly at odds with core
American and Western values.  It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.

Thus, the radical Islamist effort to impose Sharia worldwide is a direct threat to all those who believe in the freedoms maintained by our constitutional system.

Creeping Sharia in the United States

In some ways, it speaks of the goodness of America that we have had such difficulty coming to grips with the challenge of radical Islamists. It is our commitment to religious liberty that makes us uncomfortable
with defining our enemies in a way that appears linked with religious
belief.

However, America's commitment to religious liberty has given radical Islamists a potent rhetorical weapon in their pursuit of Sharia supremacy.  In a deliberately dishonest campaign exploiting our belief in religious liberty, radical Islamists are actively engaged in a public relations campaign to try and browbeat and guilt Americans (and other western countries) to accept the imposition of Sharia in certain
communities, no matter how deeply Sharia law is in conflict with the protections afforded by the civil law and the democratic values undergirding our constitutional system.

The problem of creeping Sharia is most visibly on display in France and in the United Kingdom, where there are Muslim enclaves in which the police have surrendered authority and sharia reigns.  However, worrisome cases are starting to emerge in the United States that show Sharia is coming here.  Andy McCarthy's writings, including his new book "The Grand Jihad", have been invaluable in tracking instances in which the American government and major public institutions have been unwilling to assert
the protections of American law and American values over Sharia's religious code. Some examples include:

In June 2009, a New Jersey state judge rejected an allegation that a Muslim man who punished his wife with pain for hours and then raped her repeatedly was guilty of criminal sexual assault, citing his religious
beliefs as proof that he did not believe he was acting in a criminal matter.  "This court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."  Thankfully, this ruling was reversed in an appellate court.

In May 2008, a disabled student at a public college being assisted by a dog was threatened by Muslim members of the student body, who were reluctant to touch the animal by the prescription of Sharia.  The school, St. Cloud State, chose not to engage the Muslim community, but simply gave the student credit without actually fulfilling the class hours so as to avoid conflict.

In a similar instance in November 2009, a high school senior in Owatonna, Minn., was suspended in order to protect him from the threat of violence by radical Islamists when he wrote an essay about the special
privileges afforded his Somali Muslim counterparts in the school environment.

In order to accommodate Sharia's prohibition of interest payments in financial transactions, the state of Minnesota buys homes from realtors and re-sells them to Muslims at an up-front price.  It is simply not the function of government to use tax money to create financial transactions that correspond to a religious code.  Moreover, it is a strategy to create a precedent for legal recognition of Sharia within U.S. law.

Amazingly, there are strong allegations that the United States now owns the largest provider of Sharia financing in the world: AIG.

Last month, police in Dearborn, Mich., which has a large Muslim population, arrested Christian missionaries for handing out copies of the Gospel of St. John on charges of "disturbing the peace".  They were doing so on a public street outside an Arab festival in a way that is completely permissible by law, but, of course, forbidden by Sharia's rules on proselytizing.  This is a clear case of freedom of speech and
the exercise of religious freedom being sacrificed in deference to Sharia's intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.

Shockingly, Sharia honor killings-in which Muslim women are murdered by their husbands, brothers or other male family members for dishonoring their family-are also on the rise in America but do not receive national attention because they are considered "domestic disturbances".  (A recent article in Marie Claire Magazine highlights recent cases and the efforts to bring national attention to this horrifying trend.)

Cases like this will become all the more common as radical Islamists grow more and more aggressive in the United States.

It is in this context that the controversy over the proposed mosquenear Ground Zero must be seen.

Exposing Radical Islamic Prophecy at Ground Zero

There are many reasons to doubt the stated intentions of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man behind the Ground Zero mosque.  After 9/11 he did not hesitate to condemn the United States as an "accessory" to the attacks but more recently refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. This is unsurprising considering he has well-established ties to U.S. branches of the Muslim Brotherhood.  He has also refused to reveal the sources of funding for the mosque project, which is projected to cost $100 million.

More importantly, he is an apologist for Sharia supremacy.  In a recent op-ed, Rauf actually compared Sharia law with the Declaration of Independence.  This isn't mere dishonesty; it is an Orwellian attempt to
cause moral confusion about the nature of radical Islamism.

The true intentions of Rauf are also revealed by the name initially proposed for the Ground Zero mosque – "Cordoba House" – which is named for a city in Spain where a conquering Muslim army replaced a church with a mosque.  This name is a very direct historical indication that the Ground Zero mosque is all about conquest and thus an assertion of Islamist triumphalism which we should not tolerate.

They say they're interfaith, but they didn't propose the building of a mosque, church and synagogue.  Instead they proposed a 13-story mosque and community center that will extol the glories of Islamic tolerance for people of other faiths, all while overlooking the site where radical Islamists killed almost 3,000 people in a shocking act of hatred.

Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists is not a celebration of religious pluralism and mutual tolerance; it is a political statement of shocking arrogance and
hypocrisy.

We need to have the moral courage to denounce it.  It is simply grotesque to erect a mosque at the site of the most visible and powerful symbol of the horrible consequences of radical Islamist ideology. Well-meaning Muslims, with common human sensitivity to the victims' families, realize they have plenty of other places to gather and worship. But for radical Islamists, the mosque would become an icon of triumph, encouraging them in their challenge to our civilization.

Apologists for radical Islamist hypocrisy are trying to argue that we have to allow the construction of this mosque in order to prove America's commitment to religious liberty.  They say this despite the fact that
there are already over 100 mosques in New York City.

In fact, they're partially correct – this is a test of our commitment to religious liberty.  It is a test to see if we have the resolve to face down an ideology that aims to destroy religious liberty in America, and every other freedom we hold dear.

Tea Party Racist?

Regarding the NAACP recent Pronouncement that the Tea Party is “racist:”

Obama first threw down the race card against those who oppose him. He continues to do so. The U S Department of Justice drops an open-and-shut case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation at the polls. It drops other cases involving “minority” defendants.

The U S Department of Justice sues Arizona over their new law that merely enforces federal law that the federal government refuses to enforce.

Obama coddles up to those Third-World petty satraps who are our enemies and insult our long-time allies. Homeland Security declared that all combat veterans were potential terrorist threats. I am a combat veteran. Obviously, the U S government is “racist” and becoming more so.

So why should not the NAACP throw down the race card against the Tea Party? According to Obama, all who oppose him are racists. I opposed him when he first announced his candidacy. The trouble is that the Obama administration has not issued me my Ku Klux Klan hood and robes yet. So, I can’t be that much of a racist!

Remember: Re-elect no-one in 2010. The same goes for 2012 and 2014. The encumbents support the current open racism of the U S government.

Charlie Revie

Las Cruces

Congressman Teague, why is it that you say one thing and vote the opposite?

In this instance you are saying that you are trying to bring jobs to New Mexico, but you voted for the Cap and Trade Tax bill that will eliminate 167,000 jobs in New Mexico, with the oil and gas industry losing the most jobs.

In other instances of your double-speak, consider the following --

You complain about greedy profit and are one of the wealthiest members of congress.

You attack executives for taking million dollar bonuses but gave yourself a $3.3 million bonus from your own company.

 

You attack companies that drive up the cost of health care but you cancelled the health insurance for your companies after giving yourself the $3.3 million bonus… then said your companies did not have enough money to pay the insurance.

Less than 10% of that $3.3 million bonus would have paid the health insurance for 2 years.

You attack special interests but get well over half your money from unions, Washington PACs and trial lawyers outside New Mexico.

 

You attack special interests but acknowledge that for your vote on cap and trade you worked a special interest deal with speaker Nancy Pelosi in exchange for that vote.

You maintain that you voted against Obamacare, but why did you vote FOR it in the five preliminary votes leading up to the final vote?

If your vote AGAINST Obamacare was honest, where is your signature on Rep. Steve King's HR 4972 that would repeal Obamacare?

 

Charlie Revie
Las Cruces, NM 88011

 

Response received from Harry Teague:

Dear Charles,
Earlier this year, I wrote you about the Job Resource Fairs I held across the district to help connect New Mexicans who were out of work with employers who were looking to hire. I have been pleased to hear several stories since hosting these fairs about participants finding employment, but there are still too many people who are struggling to find a steady, good-paying job.

That’s why, as a follow-up to these fairs, I decided to produce a new Job Seeker’s Resource Book to help provide additional information to New Mexicans struggling to find work. The guide book is available online and outlines resources for job seekers in every county across New Mexico’s 2nd District. The guide book also includes contact information for job training and placement programs, benefits assistance, and veterans programs.

Sincerely,

 Sign of a True Egomaniac Obama

has been passing the buck, blaming his mistakes and failures on Bush and many others he has placed in key positions in his administration for so long he has begun to believe his own hype. Not only has he broken the promises he made in his campaign speeches to the people – the largest number of promises ever broken by any other President in history – he has run been behind the largest budget in the history of this country, the largest deficit we have ever seen, has been behind the most self serving speeches any President has ever made, the most agenda setting failures of any President, and last but not least, the largest loss of popularity of any President that ever held the office of President of the United States.

He preached change to the American people and he gave them change that has virtually ruined the country and brought the dreams of millions of people crashing to the ground in ruin. People have lost their homes, jobs, while he has spent taxpayers’ money in a lavish way that would put a Saudi prince or any other potentate to shame. (I refuse to equate his habits to that of a drunken sailor, because it would be an insult to a drunken sailor.)

In only one year after celebrating his inaugural he flew high enough to be akin to Icarus who flew so close to the sun his man made wings burned and he fell to his death. But unlike Icarus, alas, Obama did not fall to his death, but will go down in history as the cause of the death of a nation, if he is not stopped from his mad plunge toward Socialism. After his most awe-inspiring campaigns that took him into the White House as the first black American President and auguring the hopes of millions who supported his run, he has let the entire nation down. But according to his twisted way of thinking and to his egoist mind, none of it is his fault. Most of the fault he has placed at door of George W Bush. To his devout followers and the Democrat Party, it was no conceivable that in one short year his administration would be in such a severe self imposed crisis and the utter destruction of the party that brought him to power would be in such turmoil.

Many of the moderate and conservative Democrats who fell prey to his flowery words have now realized their mistake and are leaving his side. But do not be deceived; Obama is a wily fox if ever there was one. His plan to destroy the United States and everything it stands for was planned in his twisted mind long before he took the most powerful office in the world. As a devout Muslim, he is bent on bringing what he considers the infidel Americans to their knees, without ever firing a shot. Some would even say he is out to conquer the world and make it into one huge socialistic government.

Others say that he is the coming of the antichrist and that we are nearing the end of our days, as predicted in the scriptures and yet, still others think he is the personification of hate built at the knee of his African Colonialist father who trained him to hate everyone and everything that is not Muslim or of African descent. No matter who is right, he is methodically destroying the United States from within, whether by design or by accident, and I have always believed that accidents happen because they are in thought a design to fail. Though I may have to revise my thinking just a might, since this is not by design to fail by any stretch of the imagination, but a design to place his mark and will on the people with, or without their wishes.

Making Bush the Scapegoat For it all

Bush no longer occupies the White House, nor does he even have a vote in the Senate or Congress, Obama places all the blame on him. How can he be to blame for the fiasco of Health Reform and its devastating effect Medicare, Social Security and the elderly who have paid their hard earned money into it for so many years, with the hope that one day they would have some security and peace of mind in their old age? How can Bush be blamed for the burden placed Obama placed on the American people of this country for many generation to come because of this one giant experiment that is doomed to failure? How can Bush be to blame for the Cap and Trade bill that will put millions out of work? How can Bush be blamed for the printing of money with not monetary backing that devaluates the American dollar? How can Bush be at fault for the fiasco and mishandling of the Gulf oil spill and the eventual cleanup, when Obama was in command all the time?

Bush wasn’t the one who broke Obama’s promise to the people to place all bills on the White House web for five days before signing them into law. Bush didn’t break Obama’s promise to make the Congressional Health care bill live on C-SPAN. Bush didn’t break Obama’s promise to end earmarks, to keep unemployment from rising above 8%, or Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo the first year he was in office. Bush didn’t go to our enemies and apologize for us being dirty Americans, or aiding in their plights when catastrophe’s hit their countries, or alienate our long time allies by insulting their leaders. It is not Bush’s fault that Obama hired former lobbyists into his administration, or break Obama’s promise to end government competition with private enterprise, or end government completion jobs. Bush also didn’t break Obama’s promise for a new bipartisan government in all matters, yet all these things he has laid at George W Bush’s doorstep, saying that Bush is at fault.

Obama would have the American people believe that he is only a puppet in failed government of George W Bush. How stupid does he believe the American people are? He believes that we are as stupid as a bunch of sheep that would follow the lead goat to the slaughter. According to Obama if Bush wasn’t still in charge of all these mistakes he could have done a better job and all his problems would be solved, his promises kept, the economy in good condition, Iran wouldn’t continue working on the Nuclear program they embarked on, North Korea would have capitulated, stopped their tyranny come to their senses and the integrity of the federal government would be restored. I am not sure what type of tobacco Obama is smoking, but it sounds as though it puts him in a pipe dream that is beyond comparison with marijuana or hashish.

 Of course if all the problems carried by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid weren’t under the heavy burden of problems left by Bush, everything in the Senate and Congress would be just dandy. There would be no earmarks, no back room deal making, or drafting of bills, no special interest influence, no deficit spending and no vote buying as happened with the unions, with Nebraska and Louisiana. If Bush wasn’t the cause of it all we would have real change now and be drinking soda pop from fountains in our parks and eating cotton candy.

To rub salt into the wounds of the American people and the residents of New York, Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder decided in their infinite wisdom to hold the trials of the terrorists in New York City.

Then of course there was the decision to try the attempted bombing on Christmas of an airplane by a terrorist as a civilian. Of course this is all Bush’s fault too. But don’t look for Obama to change his ways, because in his mind, (the mind of an egoist and borderline schizophrenic) he will always believe that his failures are because of someone else and he can do nothing wrong. After all he is mandated by the people to do anything he chooses, including bending the rules to suit the purposes of his mind. The good thing about this whole thing is that millions of Americans have come awake and opened their eyes to the dangers to our country and its economy. Let's just hope it isn't too late.