Bryan Fischer
Judge Bolton has no constitutional authority to rule on Arizona immigration law
By Bryan Fischer
Although tyrannical judge Susan Bolton won't like to hear this, her federal court is referred to in the Constitution as an "inferior" tribunal. She certainly has given us no reason to doubt the appropriateness of that term in her case.
The problem here is that the Constitution plainly gives "original jurisdiction" to the Supreme Court in "all cases...in which a State shall be Party." That's from Article III, Sec. 2. You could look it up.
The state of Arizona is without question a party in this suit. The named defendants are:
"State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity."
As Publius Huldah writes at Canada Free Press, "Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you."
In Federalist Paper No. 81, Alexander Hamilton elaborated on this provision in some detail, and made its intent explicitly clear:
"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."
Arizona officials certainly have reason to believe that their dignity has in fact been ill-suited by this out-of-control federal judge, who has usurped power and authority from the Supreme Court itself. If Judge Bolton had any working familiarity with the Constitution at all, she would have kicked this case upstairs the moment she received it.
The bottom line here is that Judge Bolton does not have the slightest constitutional authority even to hear this case, let alone issue misbegotten and ill-informed rulings on it.
My hope continues to be that Arizona will follow the Constitution, ignore Judge Bolton's ruling, which has no legal weight, and implement the law as written by the elected representatives of the people of Arizona. Why should they allow themselves to be dictated to and pushed around by this petty, little tyrant of a judge who didn't even have the right to receive this case in the first place?
© Bryan Fischer
August 3, 2010
Although tyrannical judge Susan Bolton won't like to hear this, her federal court is referred to in the Constitution as an "inferior" tribunal. She certainly has given us no reason to doubt the appropriateness of that term in her case.
The problem here is that the Constitution plainly gives "original jurisdiction" to the Supreme Court in "all cases...in which a State shall be Party." That's from Article III, Sec. 2. You could look it up.
The state of Arizona is without question a party in this suit. The named defendants are:
"State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity."
As Publius Huldah writes at Canada Free Press, "Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you."
In Federalist Paper No. 81, Alexander Hamilton elaborated on this provision in some detail, and made its intent explicitly clear:
"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."
Arizona officials certainly have reason to believe that their dignity has in fact been ill-suited by this out-of-control federal judge, who has usurped power and authority from the Supreme Court itself. If Judge Bolton had any working familiarity with the Constitution at all, she would have kicked this case upstairs the moment she received it.
The bottom line here is that Judge Bolton does not have the slightest constitutional authority even to hear this case, let alone issue misbegotten and ill-informed rulings on it.
My hope continues to be that Arizona will follow the Constitution, ignore Judge Bolton's ruling, which has no legal weight, and implement the law as written by the elected representatives of the people of Arizona. Why should they allow themselves to be dictated to and pushed around by this petty, little tyrant of a judge who didn't even have the right to receive this case in the first place?
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
