DescentBB

thread title says it all

\"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 shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.\"

it seems that the Government was in violation of the Constitution for trying this case in the court that it chose. and judge that tried the case was also in violation of the constitution. this case should have gone direct to the SCOTUS and not have been heard in any other court. I guess our Attourney General doesnt read or know the Constitution. funny I would have thought that was his job.

not to mention it seems that AZ might have the Consitutional right to protect itself from illegals

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution,:

\"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.\"

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.

thoughts?? is this a game changer???

Can you give a link to the ruling.

I would not call the situation in Arizona a \"war\" or an \"invasion,\" it is the people who so zealously support this law that want to frame the discussion in this way. In the context of immigration, the supremacy clause clearly states that immigration is a federal matter.

I am no expert in Supreme Court jurisdiction, but I believe this case is headed there anyways.

Outlaw gangs coming across the border is not “immigration”.

Now that you mention it CUDA, it would make sense under conflict of interest.

The Supremecy Clause would also prove San Francisco and other self proclaimed \"sanctuary cities\" to be in direct violation of federal law. We see how motivated the fed has been to stop that practice

As to the questions raised in the original post, I don't see the situation as being so dangerous that Arizona shouldn't ask the fed to address the armed intruders....but now they have asked and the fed's response is a token one at best, sending more border agents but limiting their duties to mostly paper pushing not enforcement.
So at some point the State would have to take up it's own defense. the courts will have to sift through the timeline and decide how long Arizona should have to wait before acting on it's own. I know most liberal judges will be thinking they need to wait until after the democrats find a way to enact some kind of amnesty under a different name.

As to the court that should have ruled on the issue, yes it looks obvious that this was Supreme Court jurisdiction from the beginning but how does one get his case directly to the Supreme Court? I don't know what that mechanism is.

I believe you take your case to the supreme court thru the normal appeals process, but there is no guarantee that the supreme court will hear your case, because the supreme court picks & chooses what cases they will hear.

I don’t believe there is any way to go “directly” to the supreme court. (maybe the government can do it) Or certain cases go there by default.

The Constitution is currently a piece of toilet paper that politicians use to wipe their ass with. Its been that way since long before any of us were born. It will be that way for a very long time to come, unless some real change comes to the government, and both the democrats and republicans are thrown from their pedestals.

null0010 wrote:In the context of immigration, the supremacy clause clearly states that immigration is a federal matter.

Since when are "criminals" who are crossing the border illegally (which ruins the chances of the legal ones getting over here) covered under the definition of immigration?