Arizona governor appeals judge’s ruling which blocked key parts of new immigration law

BRIEF HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

by Sharon Rondeau

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 29 judgeships as of 2009 and four different courthouses on the West Coast

(Jul. 30, 2010) — The State of Arizona has filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals over the ruling handed down by federal judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday.  Arizona is requesting an expedited appeal to be heard by September 13, 2010, which the Department of Justice has already opposed.

The judge’s ruling blocked “controversial” provisions of the bill from taking effect on July 29, 2010.

The constitutionality of the de facto president has been questioned by millions due to lack of proof that he meets the requirements set forth in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which raises the issue of whether or not the Department of Justice has the authority to sue Arizona.  Recently a Republican Senator has voiced his support for lawsuits attempting to force Obama to prove that he is eligible to serve.

Some lawmakers have questioned the legality of other actions of the Obama regime.

Following the judge’s ruling on Wednesday, Arizona Governor Janice Brewer made the following statement, in part:

When I signed the bill on April 23rd, I said, SB 1070 – represents another tool for our state to use as we work to address a crisis we did not create and the federal government has actively refused to fix. The law protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona are undiminished – holding fast to the diversity that has made Arizona so great.

I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm.

Judge Susan Bolton ruled that most of the provisions of the law should not be implemented.  Bolton has reportedly received “some threats” as a result of her decision as well as supportive phone calls and emails.

Some of Bolton’s experience in dealing with immigration cases is detailed here.  While the referenced article is entitled “Judge who ruled on Arizona law is well versed in immigration cases,” this writer takes exception to the evidence presented to support that contention.

One lawyer stated that Judge Bolton did not even have the authority to hear the case, citing Federalist No. 81, paragraph 13, and Article III, Section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

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, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

A recent report from the governor’s section of the Arizona government website indicates that illegals are frequently found by the Border Patrol on the Arizona side, some of them admitted gang members or who already have warrants out for their arrest.  Some are in need of, and receive from the American taxpayer, medical care on the spot or at local hospitals.  Many have been caught transporting drugs across the border.

The Southern Arizona Project Fiscal Year 2009 Fact Sheet reports that illegal immigrants impact the land by littering “layup” locations with trash, clothing, abandoned vehicles, and the creation of “unauthorized roads and trails.”

On July 22, Governor Brewer submitted a report to the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism which stated that “The issues are not new and the federal government has neglected to solve them for over a decade or longer.”

The Tenth Amendment Center cites “Thirty Enumerated Powers” which were assigned to Congress in the Constitution.  A comprehensive history of U.S. immigration law can be found here, including the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) passed by Congress  and signed by President Bill Clinton wherein the number of Border Patrol agents was doubled and which “mandated the construction of fences at the most heavily trafficked areas of the U.S.-Mexico border.”

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Photos of local television coverage of a protest staged yesterday in Phoenix, AZ regarding the implementation of  the parts of the immigration law not blocked are here.  Some protesters were reportedly arrested, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio was quoted as having said that “nothing in Bolton’s ruling prevented him from continuing his sweeps,” despite protesters “chaining themselves to the building.”

Some have compared the Rhode Island governor’s 2008 Executive Order regarding illegal immigration in his state to the Arizona law.

Regarding the federal lawsuit against Arizona, Ernest Huber, candidate for U.S. Congress from Washington State, stated, “The Obamunists are trying to misframe the issue to one of immigration, but it’s not immigration; it’s invasion.”

Print Friendly

13 Responses to "Arizona governor appeals judge’s ruling which blocked key parts of new immigration law"

  1. Kristin   Sunday, August 8, 2010 at 12:21 AM

    according to something I read on http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

    “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…”

    Only SCOTUS can have any say in these matters. Not some local Federal judge.

    I wish someone could get this through to the governor. I sent her an email, but who knows if she got it.

  2. Mick   Tuesday, August 3, 2010 at 6:59 AM

    David B says:
    Friday, July 30, 2010 at 3:25 PM
    “The lawsuit filed by Eric (we’re a nation of cowards) Holder’s attorneys went to the wrong court in the first place. Susan Bolton had no jurisdiction to hear that case. Lawsuits against states can only be filed in The United States Supreme Court. I hope someone will advise Gov. Brewer and her attorneys of this.”

    Primary jurisdiction doesn’t mean “only” jurisdiction. See
    28USC 1251(b) and 28USC 1331.

  3. Tom   Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 5:53 AM

    State & Federal Governments are equal partners
    “It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State gov’ts are superior to the federal or the federal to the States.

    The people, to whom all authority belongs have divided the powers of gov’t into 2 distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign & domestic and they have appointed for each a distinct set of functionaries. They have made coordinate checking & balancing each other..Each equally supreme as to the powers delegated to itself and neither authorized, ultimately to decide what belongs to itself or its ‘coparcener’ in government.

    As independent, in fact, as different nations, a spirit of for[e]bearance & compromise, therefore and not of encroachment & usurpation, is the healing balm of such a constitution; and each party should prudently shrink from all approach to the line of demarcation instead of rashly over leaping or throwing grapples ahead to haul to hereafter.

    The peculiar happiness of our blessed system is, that in differences of opinion between these different sets of servants the appeal is to neither, but to their employers(the people) peaceably assembled by their representatives in Convention”
    Thomas Jefferson 1821

  4. Randy   Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 2:26 AM

    When Alaska and Hawaii changed from federal territories (known as “states” in federal law) to States of the Union, many federal laws had to be changed. Basically, Alaska and Hawaii were stricken from the definition of “state”.

    Here is an example from http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11htm/append-b.htm

    (b) Section 2202 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (relating to missionaries in foreign service)53 is amended by striking out “the State, the District of Columbia, or Hawaii” and inserting in lieu thereof “the State or the District of Columbia”.

    Congresswoman confirms a special definition of “state” doesn’t include California, Arizona, etc.
    supremelaw.org/press/rels/kennell3.gif

    supremelaw.org/press/rels/irc3121.htm

    My opinion is that federal laws are written to be constitutional and compliant with the 10th amendment. It is their enforcement and interpretation that is wrong.

    In case any federal legislative draftsman would like to list all 50 states by name, I’ll do it here, it isn’t hard, and doesn’t take up that much space:

    Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Wyoming

    Charlie Rangel’s Universal Service Act only mentions the several states 101(5), but fails to list them as I have done above:
    thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5741:

  5. Vic Hern   Sunday, August 1, 2010 at 12:42 AM

    Nice going Jan and the rest of you for sending those messages. I was not able to publish my email here, but I made it short and to the point. I made promises of more support than Gov. Brewer could perhaps comprehend, and did get a short positive response back from her assistant.

    Any show of support multiplied by 1 million, 10 million or 100 million PEOPLE, as in WE THE PEOPLE, will get some action going.

    Short vacations or any expression of support will be helpful.

  6. David B   Saturday, July 31, 2010 at 2:20 PM

    It’s right Jan. Click on the link in Robert Laity’s comment. That’s where I got that information.

  7. David B   Saturday, July 31, 2010 at 2:17 PM

    Thanks Robert! The CFP link you added is where I got the information I posted.

  8. Jan   Saturday, July 31, 2010 at 1:27 PM

    That is a splendid idea, Vic, if one is retired and can just pick up, pack and leave for AZ.

    Unfortunately, I am unable to do this but it is probable that many viewers can and should appear on the scene, and send supporting letters/emails to Governor Brewer.

    I rec’d an automated reply stating that my email to her would be GIVEN TO HER.
    Yay!!!

  9. Vic Hern   Saturday, July 31, 2010 at 10:14 AM

    OK people………….or I should say WE THE PEOPLE, if we truly believe that our nation, and specifically Arizona is being invaded by foreigners, trespassers, criminals, and terrorists, then we should act.
    Even if that act is a simple show of support for Gov Brewer and fellow Arizona conservatives, by advertising and scheduling weekend road trips, vacations and other shows of numbers and force in that support. We could
    use the overall event as a show to Washington that WE THE PEOPLE mean business. WE THE PEOPLE are fed up with the FEDS. WE THE PEOPLE will gather and act. WE THE PEOPLE are gathering in Arizona
    in support of The Governor, The Legislature, The State Patrol, The Police Chiefs, The Sheriffs, The Guard and will back up our words of support AND indicate that we will do the same to Washington DC, but NOT in the same friendly manner. The event and publicity for it could be spread over several weeks so as not to create chaos, but still maximize the point.

    Organize, Publicize and Just Do It.

    What say you all?

  10. Jan   Saturday, July 31, 2010 at 6:23 AM

    David, I hope you are right as I just emailed the
    governor’s office about your info and listed
    where I had found it on Post and Email.

    Maybe someone will relay this to her.

  11. Robert Laity   Saturday, July 31, 2010 at 5:15 AM

    I already have. I sent an E-mail to Ms. Brewer’s Press Secretary,
    psenseman@az.gov

    with the following link:
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

  12. Sandie   Friday, July 30, 2010 at 7:01 PM

    As I see it, the demonstrations by the illegals are Domestic Terrorism and they need to be arrested. What part of illegal is misunderstood? Deport them, they cost us millions and drain every city of its resources… They even get better medical care, housing and other items than we do..

  13. David B   Friday, July 30, 2010 at 3:25 PM

    The lawsuit filed by Eric (we’re a nation of cowards) Holder’s attorneys went to the wrong court in the first place. Susan Bolton had no jurisdiction to hear that case. Lawsuits against states can only be filed in The United States Supreme Court. I hope someone will advise Gov. Brewer and her attorneys of this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.