EXPLOSIVE new evidence shows ruling of AZ judge is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Yes!

OK, as a bystander, so far, Arizona made a law. The justice Dept said that it was under Federal jurisdiction (commerece clause I'm guessing) and they were going to bring it up to the Supreme court because of this.

Then the judge made a ruling at the state level saying a certain part of the law was unconstitutional. It's a tough one for me. I mean, Arizona's claiming that they have the right to make the law, so then it wouldn't be a Federal matter, but a state one, so the judge would probably be in the right, but the state doesn't want the judge to be in the right.

One way or another, I hear what the judge struck down is going to the Federal courts. I also thing the US supreme court will probably rule on wether states can pass immigration reform.

But I think I'm reading it wrong, because the state would be the party that made the law.

Wait, I think I'm still right, because the judge would be the judicial branch of the state of Arizona. So the state (judge) is telling the same state (legislature) that it is wrong. You as an individual can't sue yourself, and neither can the state, so there are no parties.

I don't think the judge overstepped their bounds.

The Constitution isn't always black and white even though we think it is.

she ignored her appellate court circuit. I think that is overstepping your bounds. The ninth circuit already ruled that state officers can enforce immigration laws. If they overturn themselves everyone here will know that they did it because of politics.

So, you can cut and paste, but you obviously can't comprehend.





.

The Judge ONLY ruled on a restraining order to stop enforcement UNTIL it has been to the Supreme Court.


.

This will be in the mainstream media soon!

One last bump in hopes of a pin.

This is nothing new,,,, our government is corrupt from the top to the bottom, they care not what is right, wrong or constitutional they do what they want!!!

We are now officialy a 3rd world Banana Republic.

They were already in federal court. And in this paticular instance yes it very black and white and is also spelled out, nothing could be plainer. I suspect your grasp of the obvious is rather loose.

Why is this not pinned? Mods sleeping in late on Sunday?

For now....

Exactly things change.

BULLSHIT things change! No one has the right to change the Constitution at will, yet they have been doing this for years. Telling the BIG LIE...and the more the people hear it, the more they have believed it. Stupid, stupid people!!

Perhaps you should read some history. The one thing that hasn't changed is human nature.
The American revolution
The French revolution
The October Revolution
The Carnation Revolution
The Saur Revolution
The Singing Revolution
The Velvet Revolution
The Romanian Revolution
The Log Revolution
The Zapatista Rebellion
The Indonesian Revolution
The Cedar Revolution
The Tulip Revolution


But a few examples of things changing.
And I am sure things will change again at some point and time. Like I said things change

I am fairly sure that the feds will never do a thing about this because there may be some truth to the idea of a North American union.

It really is up to to the citizens of these states to stand watch duty on the borders.

One last bump then i guess this thread is toast. Thank you to all who voted high stars.

The constitution is not supposed to change unless ratified. Just because some idiots in the supreme court CHOOSE to change it does not make it legal. So, all the things pointed out by people as to how the constitution has been prostituted only prove that PEOPLE in power are wrong, not the constitution. If you want the TRUE meaning of the constitution, read the ORIGINAL WORDS of the founding fathers, then you can understand why they wrote what they did and quit claiming that the constitution is up for interpretation!

Who said anything about changing the constitution? And SCOTUS can not change it.

I think the phrase 'things change' was indicating that we will someday again follow the constitution as written. Now we don't. This case is evidence.

OK, annonymous coward, fitting name btw, alot of people were specifically talking about how over time the interpretation of the CONSTITUTION has changed. I am sorry if you feel it necessary to quibble on words rather than understanding. You seem to have the same problem with the constitution! The fact is that nobama and his ilk don't even HAVE to change the Constitution anymore. They just argue that all the founders were white racists and that the constitution is therefore invalid or antiquated, not suitable to "educated" people. Then they send their stupidity to the supreme idiots who decided to DECIPHER it anyway they feel like. That is how they change things without ever having to ratify a damned thing. Nobody is taught the constitution anymore, they are taught CASE LAW which was not founded on the constitution. Case law was when the idiots who run the courts decided that they were better than the founders and deciphered things with a stupid left slant.

Although the Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from suit for money damages or equitable relief without their consent, in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts may enjoin state officials from violating federal law.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Period. The ruling must be appealed to the 9th Circuit.

OP, with a few good men like you and the others who have contributed their knowledge to this thread, I see victory ahead and a restoration of our heritage as Americans.

This thread deserves 5* and a pin.
.

Pin This !

+10. Very lucid post. I guess this thread still has some leg left?

I'm not sure why this wouldn't get pinned. After all, who gives a shit about the space station cooling system and what tonight's voice chat topic is?

SCOTUS is bound by prior SCOTUS rulings from past courts. They would look pretty stupid if they said a certain law means this and it went against a prior ruling. Believe me they look and see what prior rulings were by courts of the past.

And you should remember that SCOTUS is not very fond of Obammy. Remember he took a shot at SCOTUS during the state of the Union address.