Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
john w k

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

Rate this topic

11 posts in this topic

CLICK HERE to read the Complaint.

 

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 complain ought to be laughed out of court .

 

 

JWK

 

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric Holder should be disbarred! He can’t even figure the difference between “immigration” and “naturalization“. Must be that ebonics thing. The complaint is frivolous, amateurish and without any foundation whatsoever! An intentional waste of the court’s time.

 

Regards,

JWK

 

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a progressive majority vote in Congress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostEric Holder should be disbarred! He can't even figure the difference between "immigration" and "naturalization". Must be that ebonics thing. The complaint is frivolous, amateurish and without any foundation whatsoever! An intentional waste of the court's time.

 

Regards,

JWK

 

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a progressive majority vote in Congress!

 

 

Unless the judge has already been bought cwm31.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostEric Holder should be disbarred! He can't even figure the difference between "immigration" and "naturalization". Must be that ebonics thing. The complaint is frivolous, amateurish and without any foundation whatsoever! An intentional waste of the court's time.

 

Regards,

JWK

 

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a progressive majority vote in Congress!

 

 

And to continue the thought, waste taxpayer's money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beers.gifbeers.gif "Now I figured it out waaah.gif with the Obama's outlook on the guarding the American border. Here it is " I don't want to go to work and guard the borderwaaah.gifbeers.gifkooky.gifkooky.gifheadscratch.gifconfused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostEric Holder should be disbarred! He can't even figure the difference between "immigration" and "naturalization". Must be that ebonics thing. The complaint is frivolous, amateurish and without any foundation whatsoever! An intentional waste of the court's time.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

JWK

 

 

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a progressive majority vote in Congress!

 

 

 

Eric Holder held a press conference when this bill was signed into law by Brewer. At that PC, Holder ripped the bill as "wrong". When asked if he had read the bill he replied, "NO" kooky.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric Holder complaint, in the complaint Holder asserts jurisdiction under Article 1, Section 8, implying a power has been delegated to Congress to regulate “immigration matters” is found therein, but he never points to the clause under Article 1, Sect. 8 which allegedly grants such power, and does not point to the clause because there has never been granted the power alleged [over immigration matters]. He then applies the “supremacy” clause, but to what delegated power is it applied to? That is the question.

If the jurisdictional issue is challenged by Arizona, the case cannot proceed until jurisdiction is established over the subject matter in contention which is “immigration matters“.

 

Apparently, Holder does not understand the distinction between the terms, “immigration” and “naturalization“, the latter having been placed in Congress’ regulatory powers under Article 1, Sec. 8.

 

As for immigration or "migration", the only related power I find in the Constitution is as follows:

 

Article 1, Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

 

That seems to be the extent of the power in question. Eric needs to learn to read, and then to rely upon original source material, and not some of the made-up crap put out by the Courts. Remember, what the court puts out are only “opinions”, and as we are fast learning, a lot of the court’s opinions are not grounded in the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

 

JWK

 

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostEric Holder held a press conference when this bill was signed into law by Brewer. At that PC, Holder ripped the bill as "wrong". When asked if he had read the bill he replied, "NO" kooky.gif

 

 

 

Let us consider what is actually going on between Barrack Hussein Obama, his racist AG Eric the-Black-Panther-lover Holder, and how the federal government is, or is not, involved in the issue as laid out in our federal Constitution.

 

Our Constitution states in crystal clear language that Congress shall have power to …repel Invasions. I think there is no question that we now have an armed invasion of our borders taking place.

 

In addition to Congress’s power, the executive is required by the word “shall“, to protect against an invasion:

 

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence

 

The state of Arizona has repeatedly requested the executive to honor its mandatory requirements as listed under Art. 4, Section 4, and the failure to do so is reasonable cause to indicate the executive is giving aid and comfort to an armed invading force.

 

Our Constitution defines treason as : Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. It seems reasonable to say that those who are now armed and invading our borders are enemies of the united states as they have breached our borders, flaunt our laws, murder and kidnap our citizens, an engage in a variety of other misdemeanors and felonies. And so, our executive’s actions, in not protecting against an ongoing invasion, borders on Treason, but what is irrefutable is, our executive is obviously guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance, and those crimes fall within the definition of high Crimes and Misdemeanors as in Article 2, Section 4:

 

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

The bottom line is, we have a federal government acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

 

JWK

 

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.