By Joseph R. Evanns and Egon Mittelmann
Investor's Business Daily
August 3, 2010
In federal lawsuits, defendants may answer litigation filed against them with a counterclaim against the plaintiff for damages or other relief.
The Constitution of the United States mandates at Article 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government ... that the United States shall protect each of them (the states) against invasion and ... against domestic violence." (Emphasis added)
"Republican form of government" is defined as a republic that is a system of government in which the people hold sovereign power and elect representatives to exercise that power.
To "guarantee" means to warrant or undertake that something has happened or will happen. The term "invasion" is (regarding a country or territory ) a hostile incursion.
The term "shall" used in the third person singular denotes an imperative, without discretion or choice. Thus, the phrase "shall guarantee" leaves no wiggle room.
Remedies for breach of guarantee are damages (expenses incurred in repairing guaranteed product) or rescission (return of product for refund of purchase price — i.e., "money back" guarantee).
Recently, the federal government — the present regime in particular — has not only violated the guarantee of republican form of government and the pledge to protect Arizona from invasion and domestic violence, but has actively worked to achieve the exact opposite result.
[snip]
It is undeniable that the federal government has shamelessly and willfully violated its guarantee and pledges under Article 4, constituting suitable grounds for counterclaims by Arizona against the federal government.
[snip]
Gaspers in disbelief regarding rescission/secession should know that there is nothing sacrosanct about the federal government; only the Constitution is inviolable. When the federal government willfully refuses to comply with a constitutional mandate, the Constitution can be upheld only by implementing its provisions, in this case the "money back" guarantee.
Read more . . .
Sure, they could sue, but they won't - leaving many to believe Brewer is in this fight ONLY for political reasons. Which is a real shame, because it is such a real problem. The only thing she has going for her right now is the fact that she is bucking Obama which garners her a lot of support, despite the real issues. If she would put politics aside and put up a REAL fight for Arizona, I believe she would see her support grow even more. People in this country legally are fed up - I just don't understand why the politician can't see it - perhaps they are just too tainted by corruption and can't see the forest for the trees.
ReplyDeleteI believe I read on this blog where the case should have gone directly to the Supremes - why didn't Brewer object and insist on the Constitutional provision of sending it directly to SCOTUS?
If this is real to her, and she is serious - she needs to pull out all the stops, up to and including threatening secession. Obama doesn't take anything seriously and I highly doubt he would take that seriously either, but it would definitely make a statement, harking back to the Civil War - which is basically what the war was REALLY about (Secession and the economy) - Lincoln could have given a rats rip about slavery. Those in government wanted and needed to keep the Union in tact at any cost. It would be very interesting to see where our current government stands on that issue today.
Indeed AZ is in an excellent, once-in-a-lifetime position to request Original Jurisdiction from SCOTUS probably under Rule 17 and to request an act of mandamus with respect to Presidential eligibility. This could be filed separately from the immigration business or as a bifurcated pleading since fot the government actions to be valid the President must validly have Constitutional power vested in him - and he has yet to show that he is legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.
ReplyDeleteThe Federal District court truly does not have jurisdiction in the immigration matter (though they'd certainly like to) as I posted on a different here:
The law you that many cite (USC 28 1151(b)) is merely one of the the attempted end runs around the Constitution in trying to make it useless. Article III of the Constitution states:
“… The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made , or which shall be made, under their authority … to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party …” and further goes on to state:
“… In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appelate Jurisdiction …”.
It is not within the purview of Congress to override or abrogate the words and clear meaning of the Constitution (no matter how hard and how often they try – as in the instance cited of 28 USC 1251). Absent a Constitutional Amendment, the statute you cite is clearly unconstitutional in attempting to give jurisdiction (and thereby political power) to one of the inferior courts which merely constitutes an attemp to make a Congressional grab of unauthorized (and unconstitutional) political power.
I certainly hope that AZ takes the matter to SCOTUS on this basis as the congregational statute will most likely be struck down unless SCOTUS (for some reason) decides to participate in its own destruction by pulling its own teeth thereby allowing Congressional amendment of the Constitution at their whim – (as you many in the oligarchy hope).
Many seem to miss the whole idea of the Constitution as a contract between the three branches of the government and the people of the country. It’s time that that is rectified.