Eric Holder blows it in Arizona Complaint [immigration case].


The complaint is in fact defective on its face and ought to be laughed out of court! The complaint alleges that:

“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”

Please note that if no “authority” has been granted to Congress over “immigration matters”, then any acts of Congress over immigration matters are immediately called into question as not having a constitutional basis.

The complaint continues:

“JURISDICTION AND VENUE”

Under this heading, which is necessary to establish jurisdiction over the subject matter, it mentions Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution which declares:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Presumably, this part of the Constitution has been referenced in the complaint to indicate any laws written by Congress with respect to “immigration matters” shall be the supreme law of the land. But this only applies if in fact Congress has been granted power over “immigration matters”.

The complaint then mentions Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution as establishing the necessary “jurisdiction” over “immigration matters“, but omits or fails to identify the specific clause under Article 1, section 8 which mentions immigration or immigration matters.

Article 1, Section 8 reads as follows:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

As one can see, the word immigration does not even appear in the section pointed to in the complaint, which is necessary to establish jurisdiction. What does appear in that section is a power granted to Congress “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. And what is the meaning of “naturalization” as the word appears in our Constitution and was used by our founding fathers?

While debating our nation’s Rule of Naturalization in 1790, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE gives us the meaning of naturalization: “the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152

In fact “naturalization” is the act by which one becomes a citizen. And what was the specific intentions for which Congress was granted a power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?

Sherman, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution notes the intentions for which the power [Naturalization] was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148

There is a vast difference between the two words “naturalization” [the act by which one becomes a citizen] and “immigration” [the migration of people from one place to another], and for the complainant to fail establishing the required jurisdiction over “immigration matters” while contending a supreme authority exists over that that specific subject matter, leaves a fatal defect on the face of the complaint, especially when no such power has been specifically vested in the powers of Congress. The complaint ought to be laughed out of court.

Reporter’s Question on Obama’s Illegal-Immigration Policy Leaves Gibbs Stammering

Priceless

As very well we all know, this federal case and the government "posers" that are bringing it against AZ should be laughed clear out of the 9th Circuit Court,(if not this Country, altogether). And it very well may be done just that way, laughed right out, legally. But not until after millions of dollars have been spent in attorneys and other costs that all the American Taxpayers will foot the bill for.

Even then, it will be appealed and end up waiting to be heard by the SCOTUS, and after quite some time,(instead of simply being again, laughed out of court), it just may be heard. Even IF the final ruling is in total favor of the State of AZ, the ruling will matter little. This administration's goal is to bankrupt the American People, AND the States we all live in. This suit, possible appeal, and even a possible favorable SCOTUS ruling will change nothing, except to waste precious taxpayers and states time and most of all taxpayer's money!

The border will never be properly guarded, and this whole damned orchestrated circle-jerk will achieve little beyond this administration's goal of "Amnesty For Illegal Aliens". Dare NO American here forget this one fact, this administration IS stacking our government and all courts against We The People and our Rights and our Constitution! Which leaves more than a mere 'danger' that the BS fed's suit against AZ could be upheld! Either way, We The People WILL loose!

The closet thing We The People can expect to true and proper "Immigration Reform" that this nation is slowing dying without action towards, is going to far more resemble, "Immigration Deformation and Distruction"!

.

(...And no, I didn't even stay in a Holiday Express Inn last night, but my dad is a PhD in Law and I have studied nearly as much, and this IS the current administration's track record to date!)

Michael

9 more states wade into immigration fight

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/...gration_states

DETROIT – States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox said Wednesday in a legal brief on behalf of nine states supporting Arizona's immigration law.


Cox, one of five Republicans running for Michigan governor, said Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court and is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.


The Arizona law, set to take effect July 29, directs officers to question people about their immigration status during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops and if there's a reasonable suspicion they're in the U.S. illegally.


President Barack Obama's administration recently filed suit in federal court to block it, arguing immigration is a federal issue. The law's backers say Congress isn't doing anything meaningful about illegal immigration, so it's the state's duty to step up.


"Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state's efforts to protect its own borders," Cox said in a statement.


Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, in a statement released by Cox's office, said she was thankful for the support.


In a telephone interview, Cox said the nine states supporting Arizona represents "a lot of states," considering it was only Monday that he asked other state attorneys general to join him. The brief was filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona on the same day as the deadline for such filings.


"By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government," the brief states.


The brief doesn't represent the first time Cox has clashed with the Obama administration. Earlier this year, he joined with more than a dozen other attorneys general to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of federal health care changes signed into law by the Democratic president.


Like with his stance on health care, the immigration brief again puts Cox at odds with Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Granholm, who can't seek re-election because of term limits, disagrees with the Arizona law, her press secretary Liz Boyd said. The Michigan primary is less than three weeks away on Aug. 3.


"It's a patently political ploy in his quest for the Republican nomination for governor," Boyd said.

South Dakota joins fight against federal suit over Arizona immigration law


South Dakota has joined with several other states in backing Arizona in its fight to enforce a law giving state's joint authority over immigration enforcement.

"This is a highly-publicized and important legal issue that must be settled," Gov. Rounds said in a written statement issued along with South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley.

"Simply put, states should be allowed to enforce federal immigration law," Rounds added.

Last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed a lawsuit on behalf of the federal government, challenging Arizona law governing state immigration enforcement.

South Dakota will join several other states in the capacity of amicus curiae, or friend of the court, but will not be a party defendant.

According to the news release, the State of Michigan has taken the lead role of the amicus states. It is anticipated that South Dakota will not bear any costs associated with its supportive and advisory role, the release states.

"South Dakota presently enjoys and will strive to continue our tradition of cooperative immigration enforcement with our local federal law enforcement partners," Jackley said in the written statement. "The federal government's national decision to engage in selective enforcement of federal law and to enter into litigation with Arizona unnecessarily abandons cooperative efforts on immigration enforcement at the cost of public safety."

Obama’s Race War is Right on Schedule

http://www.rightsidenews.com/201007...tml?utm_source=Right+Side+News&utm_campa ign=7229048750-daily-rss-newsletter&utm_

Obama’s Race War is Right on Schedule


from JB Williams
Friday, 16 July 2010 05:19

Instead of using federal powers to uphold laws protecting our nation's borders, the Obama administration has chosen to use the full weight of the federal government to attack the state of Arizona for attempting to legally enforce standing immigration laws.

This is consistent with Team Obama's heavy-handed dictatorial tyranny over the states and the people, which has manifest in several full frontal assaults on both state and individual rights. But there is much more to it than meets the eye for most American citizens.
It is all part of a grand plan for leftist political domination...

Three Sanctuary States - Fifty Sanctuary Cities
Most folks are not aware of the fact that we have three US states which openly welcome and protect illegal immigration by way of state statute. They are Alaska, Oregon and Maine. Illegal immigrants are welcome anywhere within these three states.
However, there are at least 24 other states that account for more than 50 "sanctuary cities." Washington, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

By no coincidence, these same states show up on a few other important lists...

* States in the most financial trouble
* States with the highest violent crime rates
* States with the highest unemployment
* States with the most drug and gang activity
* States with the highest abortion rates
* States with the highest foreclosure rates

Now, have you noticed that all of these states and cities are currently in violation of federal immigration laws? Arizona's new law is designed to uphold existing federal immigration and naturalization laws.

Obama shouldn't be suing Arizona for its new law. He should be suing three states and more than fifty cities for their violations of federal immigration laws via their "sanctuary" statutes, all of which violate federal law.

Who's coming to America these days?
In the case of illegal immigrants, it is law breakers, criminals, gang thugs, drug runners and the occasional Jihadist.

Decent, honest, hard working families seeking a better life for their families come here LEGALLY, as they have for more than two hundred years now. Legal immigrants are welcome here in America, so long as they abide by our laws, respect our culture, and seek to assimilate into society becoming equal citizens in every way.
Why won't leftists like Obama differentiate between these two very different scenarios?

A Race War in the Making!

Even if you object to both the white and black halves of Barack Obama's communist policies, it is only the black half that matters. After all, if Obama was 100% white (instead of 50% white), your objection to his communist manifesto by executive order wouldn't be an act of "racism," now would it.

Therefore, we must focus on only the black half of his family tree. Keep this in mind when asking why Obama's Department of Justice refused to prosecute blatant voter intimidation by ACORN Black Panthers during the 2008 election.

Likewise, white American's cannot oppose illegal immigration without Obama & Co. pointing out that they must "hate Mexicans," since it is largely Mexicans who have made a trade out of breaking and entering at our southern border. Once again, the race card is played...
Even worse, Obama's Muslim outreach is developing in the form of mosques popping up all over the country, including potentially at 9/11 ground zero, and Sharia Law is even taking hold in certain communities now overrun with Islamic immigrants.

Opposing this is also an "act of racism" according to Obama & Co. The race card is the only card being played in the deck of tricks by Alinsky, Ayers and Cloward-Piven - and that's because it works!

If every opponent of anti-American hogwash can be played off as some racist crackpot, the leftist agenda can march forward unchallenged. Who wants to be known as a "racist?"

Now for the Bad News

Via leftist groups like LaRaza on behalf of illegal immigrants, ACORN, the NAACP and the New Black Panther Party on behalf of blacks, and CAIR on behalf of Jihadists, the Obama administration is creating the perfect racially charged storm across America.

None of these groups are listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center list of "potential domestic terrorists" used by Obama's Department of Homeland Security as the playbook for dealing with domestic terrorism, national security or racial tensions. Only "right-wing" constitutionally grounded taxpayers and military veterans make the list of "potential threats" under the Obama administration.

None of this is accidental or without purpose. Racial tensions were nonexistent in most parts of America, until Obama came on the scene.

Before Obama was elected illegal resident of the people's White House, few in America cared what color, race or religion anyone was... Since the 2008 election, the word "racism" has been exploited as a political tool to silence any and all voices of dissent.

Tea Party, 912 and Town Hall folks, largely made up of aging American taxpayers, most of them white of course, have been painted by the Obama administration and his lame stream press as "racists" and "potential" terrorists.

Yet every available film clip demonstrating any form of thuggery or violence shows Black, Mexican or Muslim Obama supporters burning the streets, trashing businesses and private property, intimidating voters, threatening citizens or actually beating up anyone daring to disagree in public.

An all out race war is being ignited by the very people who claim to want a color blind society of equality and the central front is Arizona. This is Obama's "citizen army."

People, who believe that the real American military will use force to put down citizen resisters of this administration, do not know their soldiers very well. Obama must have another army in order to put down decent American citizens opposed to communism in America.

Obama's "citizen army" is made up of Democratic Socialists, Black Panthers, illegal immigrants from Mexico and Jihadists. They are all racially charged to attack decent American citizens, more so by the hour.

Every act of opposition to Obammunism has already been established an act of "racism" and Obama's army is ready to pounce... We are already seeing it happen is pockets around the country.

Only Nine States Ready to Defend Arizona
From USA Today - "Led by Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, the chief legal officers of nine states and one U.S. territory just filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Arizona's controversial illegal immigration crackdown against a legal challenge by the Obama administration.

The brief was filed before a federal court in Arizona where a hearing on the federal suit has been scheduled for tomorrow." - (Full story here...)
Joining the Michigan brief: are Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Texas and the territory of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Contrary to daily assertions by the Obama administration, federal laws trump state statutes ONLY when those federal laws have constitutional authority, and the state law is at odds with federal law or the US Constitution.

Our federal government is NOT the supreme authority of this land, the US Constitution is...
When the People Take Matters into their own Hands
When the federal government fails, or in this case refuses to uphold the laws of this land, the states MUST act on their own or the people WILL take matters into the own hands, left with no other alternatives.

Unless we want the citizens using civilian forces to protect the laws that protect our borders, aka our national sovereignty and security, the states will have to act where and when the federal government refuses to act. The state of Arizona made the right move and all other 49 states should be defending Arizona's right to protect its border and its people.

In Arizona, citizens have taken matters into their own hands in the form of citizen border patrols, in some cases capturing and even killing illegal invaders, members of Los Zetas, in the middle of the Arizona desert.

Arizona empowered state law enforcement agents to enforce existing laws, so that the people of Arizona won't have to protect their own border and neighborhoods on their own. For that, Obama is suing the state of Arizona when he should be suing every state and city with "sanctuary" statutes. Those are the states and cities currently breaking existing federal laws.

The BIGGER Picture

In the grand scam to capture eternal political power however, Obama & Co. needs two things...

* 1. Millions of new union laborers and reliable DNC voters
* 2. A race war

So, opposing illegal immigration, amnesty for illegals, socialized medicine, bad loans to under-qualified borrowers, buyouts and sell-offs of American manufacturers like GM and Chrysler, public sector union thuggery that holds every taxpayer hostage and much more coming down the Obama trail, then you MUST be a "racist."
Because if you aren't, there will be no race war and Obama will go down in history as the most anti-American thug to ever sit in the Oval Office.
Since that can't be allowed to happen, you must be a "racist."

Sources
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxP1p...eature=related
http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html
http://cloward-piven.com/
http://www.sanctuarycities.info/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LHRzxgAxRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h5dB...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LjZ-LCOW5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDpze...layer_embedded
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6989
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...tion-lawsuit/1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...els/index.html
JB Williams
www.JB-Williams.com
JBWilliams09@gmail.com
www.FreedomForce.us
__________________

While these states and cities are performing civil disobedience when it comes to laws of immigration, the federal government is guilty of not enforcing its own laws.

Arizona is not only complying with federal law, but enforcing the law that the fed’s choose to ignore.

So we can assume that it is OK to disobey a federal law, but it is illegal to enforce the law.

Bama in the Whitehouse = Alice in wonderland.

That is incorrect. Bama is close to 75% white. His father has both black and Arabic blood. Arabs, even though they are darker skinned, are considered Caucasians.

It must be pointed out that bama doesn’t have much in common with American blacks, as he had no ancestors that were slaves in the south. However, his ancestors were the ones that sold the ancestors of American blacks into slavery .

The irony of truth. However, most people today don't care to educate themselves enough, so in modern public schooling standards all blacks have slave ancestors. It's sick, really.

DeMint-Vitter Amendment Would Stop Obama Administration Attempts to Sue Arizona Over Immigration Law

http://demint.senate.gov/public/inde...=PressReleases

WASHINGTON, D.C.
U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), chairman of the U.S. Senate Steering Committee, and David Vitter (R-Louisiana), chairman of the U.S. Senate Border Security Caucus, announced the introduction of an amendment that would prohibit President Obama’s administration, including the Department of Justice and other agencies, from participating in lawsuits seeking to invalidate the recently enacted Arizona immigration law. The DeMint-Vitter amendment (#4464) could be voted on next week as part of the debate on the small business bill on the Senate floor.

“States like Arizona shouldn't be prosecuted for protecting their citizens when the federal government fails to do so,” said Senator DeMint. “The federal government is rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging many more to enter our nation illegally when they refuse to enforce our laws. States along the border are facing kidnappings, drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang violence and they have a duty to keep their residents safe. Instead of suing states for doing his job, the President should get serious and stop holding border security hostage to pass amnesty and score points with his liberal base.”

“The state of Arizona is simply taking responsibility for a problem that the federal government has neglected for years, but Washington’s only response is to oppose these new enforcement efforts and take them to court. The Obama administration should not use taxpayers’ money to pay for these lawsuits that the American people overwhelmingly oppose,” said Senator Vitter.

Arizona’s new law, SB 1070, grants state law enforcement officials the authority to enforce federal immigration laws by allowing them to inquire about immigration status of individuals who are lawfully stopped for other crimes. The law explicitly forbids racial profiling. As many as 18 states are considering similar laws, as reported by the Associated Press, including: Florida, South Carolina, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Michigan.

UPDATE

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010...na-suffers-tough-blows-in-court-hearing/

States Join Legal Brief Supporting Ariz. Immigration Law as Donations Roll Into Gov. Brewer's Defense Fund

Published September 04, 2010


AP

PHOENIX -- Nearly a dozen states have filed a legal brief in support of Arizona's controversial immigration law.

A "friend of the court" brief filed with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday argues that a federal judge was wrong to block implementation of key provisions of the law.

The brief submitted by Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox argues that the judge used the wrong legal standard to rule on the U.S. Justice Department's request for a preliminary injunction.

It also says the judge erred in ruling that the law interferes with the executive branch's immigration enforcement priorities.

Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia joined in the filing.


In addition to the legal brief, a Wyoming man has given more than $1.5 million to help defend Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement measure in court, Gov. Jan Brewer's office said Thursday.

The contribution from Timothy Mellon of Saratoga is the largest to Brewer's defense fund, which has amassed more than $3.6 million from 41,000 donors nationwide. Mellon could not immediately be reached for comment.

The latest legal bills released Thursday show Brewer's office has spent more than $440,000 for the first two months of defending the law.

The bills, obtained through a public records request by The Associated Press, are for work performed through June by Phoenix law firm Snell & Wilmer. They do not cover July hearings in federal court before a judge Susan Bolton temporarily blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions.

Brewer has appealed Bolton's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Her office is defending the state against seven lawsuits challenging Arizona's law, including cases filed by the U.S. Justice of Department, civil rights groups and two police officers.

Bolton has dismissed two of the cases.

"The fees incurred have been, and will continue to be, sizeable," Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said, noting there have been more than 900 legal filings totaling more than 12,000 pages.

Arizona's law would generally require officers enforcing other measures to check the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.