Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Publius Huldah - ONLY the US Supreme Court Has Constitutional Authority

Publius Huldah - ONLY the US Supreme Court Has Constitutional Authority

Ratings: (0)|Views: 68 |Likes:
Published by Juan del Sur
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.
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.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: Juan del Sur on Aug 02, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/24/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Publius Huldah – Only The US Supreme Court Has Authority 
Page
 
1
 
of 
 
3
 
ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer Author:
Publius Huldah
 Date: Thursday, July 29, 2010http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983 Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. FederalJudge 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 inOur 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 shallhave original Jurisdiction.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, thesupreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed tohearing 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
1
shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,Governor of the State of Arizona, in herOfficial Capacity, Defendants.Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do youSee 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 USSupreme Court “original Jurisdiction”, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THATis what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. JudgeSusan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are aUS Supreme Court justice).In Federalist No. 81
2
(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 isto be invested with
original jurisdiction, only “in cases affectingambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.”
Public ministers of every class are the immediaterepresentatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are
 
Publius Huldah – Only The US Supreme Court Has Authority 
Page
 
2
 
of 
 
3
 
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 andproper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to thehighest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness adiplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to whichthey belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them.
Incases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit itsdignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal…
. [boldface added, capsin 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 demandingthat 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 thiscase.2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in theSupreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the SupremeCourt. A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law “extraordinary writ”: It asks a courtto 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)
,
3
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 specificallprohibits 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 andagainst THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.
4
  Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States againstinvasion.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 onthe part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.OK, counselors - Go for it!
P
 

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Brendon Guiznot liked this
Brendon Guiznot added this note
Art. 3, sec. 2, cl. 2 doesn't give SCOTUS exclusive original jurisdiction. Thus, it is shared with the inferior courts. Congress so recognized in the very first Judiciary Act. And it has been so interpreted since then. Your little confection is thus intellectually dishonest.
Juan del Sur liked this
Juan del Sur liked this
Juan del Sur liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->