A New Arizona Court Wrinkle

[Pooky 3,825]

You're using a RWN as an authority on constitutionality, but then say the constitution is apolitical.

As for her argument - its laughable.

^[/url]

This is about as ridiculous as the Orly Taitz and the Birther Movement. Oh brother.

As is your whole argument.

The jurisdiction is based on who the action is brought against, i.e. the State of Arizona, not the type of action. You don't seem able to argue against the author's assertion, so you persist in meaningless, snide asides against the author herself.

And what has the political leaning of the author got to do with anything, if they can produce a cogent argument back up their assertion? Do all Constitutional scholars need to be Left-Wing for you to accept them as Constitutional scholars? That is a dangerous and unbalanced PoV in the extreme.

As I said, The Constitution is apolitical. A legal argument will either be in synch with The Constitution, or it will run counter to it, and so not be valid, regardless of the politics of the parties affected, a viewpoint you don't seem to understand.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As is your whole argument.

The jurisdiction is based on who the action is brought against, i.e. the State of Arizona, not the type of action. You don't seem able to argue against the author's assertion, so you persist in meaningless, snide asides against the author herself.

And what has the political leaning of the author got to do with anything, if they can produce a cogent argument back up their assertion? Do all Constitutional scholars need to be Left-Wing for you to accept them as Constitutional scholars? That is a dangerous and unbalanced PoV in the extreme.

As I said, The Constitution is apolitical. A legal argument will either be in synch with The Constitution, or it will run counter to it, and so not be valid, regardless of the politics of the parties affected, a viewpoint you don't seem to understand.

Oh God. If you seriously take this nutjob's argument as valid then I don't know what else to tell you. You seem to have a hankering for buying into outrageous claims, easily lured by what you perceive as expertise. Go ahead and be a fool. It's going to amusing to watch this unfold.

[Pooky 3,825]

Oh God. If you seriously take this nutjob's argument as valid then I don't know what else to tell you. You seem to have a hankering for buying into outrageous claims, easily lured by what you perceive as expertise. Go ahead and be a fool. It's going to amusing to watch this unfold.

Why not argue the content of the article, something you have singularly failed to do so far?

I made no judgement of the author, other than to read what they wrote. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of dissociating the author and the argument they put forward, and have consistently tried to ridicule them, rather than argue the content of what they wrote. And now you have a go at me, for no other reason than supporting the author's argument.

I might remind you that you started this thread A Plea to Long Time, Level-Headed Members Who Still Post Here in an attempt to foster serious discussion and cut down on "playground behaviour," as you put it. Persistent name-calling, derogatory comments and dismissive gestures mark you out as one of the main perpetrators of what you argued so passionately against. Perhaps you need to revisit your thread and read it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why not argue the content of the article, something you have singularly failed to do so far?

TPM Muckraker hasn't published the appropriate response yet.

Edited August 1, 2010 by ##########

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

SB1070 will become law the way it was originally written at some point. As soon as the supreme court gets hold of it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why not argue the content of the article, something you have singularly failed to do so far?

I made no judgement of the author, other than to read what they wrote. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of dissociating the author and the argument they put forward, and have consistently tried to ridicule them, rather than argue the content of what they wrote. And now you have a go at me, for no other reason than supporting the author's argument.

This is why I normally don't bother engaging you because you seem incapable of critical thinking. If you had that capacity, you would asked yourself how is it that this one lawyer blogger questions the legitimacy of the U.S. Circuit Judge's jurisdiction in this case, but no one, not even the legal teams behind SB1070 have made any such claims? This teeters on conspiracy theory. You think that all opinions are equally valid and took this nutjob's blog site to validate your twisted understanding of constitutional law. Orly Taitz also claims to be an attorney and made the assertion that Obama was illegitimate as our President because she had proof he was born in Kenya. This is absurd and you're being stupid to even consider it.

[justashooter 430]

bone heads arguing over the price of beans in china.

"The State" is not one of the "Several States" of the United States Of America. it is the country, itself. if someone sues the USA, the SCOTUS has jurisdiction. if someone sues the State of Arizona, a lower court has jurisdiction.

[evli1966 88]

This is why I normally don't bother engaging you because you seem incapable of critical thinking. If you had that capacity, you would asked yourself how is it that this one lawyer blogger questions the legitimacy of the U.S. Circuit Judge's jurisdiction in this case, but no one, not even the legal teams behind SB1070 have made any such claims? This teeters on conspiracy theory. You think that all opinions are equally valid and took this nutjob's blog site to validate your twisted understanding of constitutional law. Orly Taitz also claims to be an attorney and made the assertion that Obama was illegitimate as our President because she had proof he was born in Kenya. This is absurd and you're being stupid to even consider it.

Actually Steve you are blinding yourself from your left/progressive views.

It is the action of one that questions authority/laws/morality that encourages free thinking of the people whether or not the questions are contrary to the majority rule or not.

This is the basis of true thinking not right a RWN or a LWPH (Left wing Political Hack).

By reviewing both sides of the arguements tossing out conjecture and what may happen, sifting through the policitcal BS and asserting an APOLITICAL view point to a law as it applies to the constitution is how it should be read. This is what Pooky means yet most often you bash the sources in opposition to you assertaining your leftist sources are better and never really argue the issue.

You seem to be a decent person but to tell someone as you have said to me in the past we are incapable of critical thinking is laughable when all we see from you is far left wing posts and conjecture which hacks the constituion to pieces. Hacking means chopping apart so you can keep what you like and trash the rest.

What you need to come to terms with so you can see an issue and discuss it with unbiased view points is that RWN pass knee jerk laws and LWPH chop the constitution to pieces in an effort to give the government more controll and less individual rights to the people.

Here is an example of how this process affects me personally unrelated to the AZ law.

RWN pass knee jerk laws against peopel with a SO crime in their past; these laws ignore the actual studies showing the law being past protects no one yet further persecutes the SO making it harder for that person to become a productive memeber of society supporting themselves and their families(yes they have families).

LWPH may dislike these laws but unless the laws affect the hacked part of the constitution they support they will never speak against it; yet if the law affects a demographic of the populace by removing liberties or future liberties they will take action to make change. A child (13 yrs old) with a SO crime (yes they are on the registry) could as the laws stand in most states be classified as a Tier 3 offender and by federal law be mandated to register for life. This has forced action by the LWPH to question these laws which was passed by the RWN and change is happening.

Not sure if that is a good example but the best I can present because it is from experience.

I hope that opens your mind a little more.

Edited August 1, 2010 by evli1966

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's the Birther Movement all over again.

[Pooky 3,825]

This is why I normally don't bother engaging you because you seem incapable of critical thinking. If you had that capacity, you would asked yourself how is it that this one lawyer blogger questions the legitimacy of the U.S. Circuit Judge's jurisdiction in this case, but no one, not even the legal teams behind SB1070 have made any such claims? This teeters on conspiracy theory. You think that all opinions are equally valid and took this nutjob's blog site to validate your twisted understanding of constitutional law. Orly Taitz also claims to be an attorney and made the assertion that Obama was illegitimate as our President because she had proof he was born in Kenya. This is absurd and you're being stupid to even consider it.

It's the Birther Movement all over again.

For someone wanting serious discussion, you seen singularly incapable of engaging in it. Instead, you resort to personal insults, evasion, misdirection and invective. Perhaps that's why, in 6 responses on this thread so far, you have failed to even address the content of the author's article, let alone offer and form of reasoned counter-argument.

I assure you that you don't have the monopoly on critical thinking. However, before we get there, how about using research and logical thinking to argue the subject of the author's article? That the author may be the first to note this particular quirk of the Constitution doesn't surprise me, as it really doesn't have any bearing on the eventual outcome of the legal action and so may have been outside the focus of the legal teams involved. The author may also have the advantage of looking at this issue from the viewpoint of an outsider, with a broader scope of research than those involved. Also, those same legal teams may have understood that 28 USC § 1251 directed which court has jurisdiction, per the following excerpt ...

But respecting the judicial power of the federal courts, Congress has made a law which directly contradicts Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 of Our Constitution. That pretended law is 28 USC § 1251:

...

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

...

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State

... all of which forms part of the argument the author is making, addressing and countering this issue by reference back to The Constitution itself. Currently, I have seen no counter-argument pointing out a flaw in the author's line of reasoning, but I'm not so close-minded as to rule out the possibility of there being one.

So, if you hold The Constitution in as high esteem as you claim, make a reasoned argument, based on the very same Constitution, that counters the author's interpretation and hold off on the conspiracy theory, the insults, the disparagement and the irrelevant diversion.

And what on Earth has Orly Taitz and the Birther movement got to do with this? Apart from a source of distraction from the original subject, absolutely nothing.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Pooky

[Pooky 3,825]

bone heads arguing over the price of beans in china.

"The State" is not one of the "Several States" of the United States Of America. it is the country, itself. if someone sues the USA, the SCOTUS has jurisdiction. if someone sues the State of Arizona, a lower court has jurisdiction.

If there was any mention of "The State", I would agree with you. But the references all refer to "A State", which alters the meaning significantly. The author further explains ...

But Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says that in “ALL” Cases in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court “SHALL” have original jurisdiction (i.e., the supreme Court is to conduct the trial). In Our Constitution, We delegated to the supreme Court alone the authority to conduct the trials of cases in which States are a party. We most manifestly did NOT grant that power to inferior tribunals. And Congress may not alter, by any pretended “law”, Our grant of power which was to the supreme Court alone.

The Federalist Papers were written to explain the proposed Constitution to the People and to induce them to ratify it. For this reason, the Federalist is the most authoritative commentary we have on the original intent of the Constitution. The States understood, before their delegations ratified the Constitution, that if they were ever sued by the new federal government, their case would be tried before the Supreme Court! As noted above, Hamilton said, respecting suits against States:

…In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal…

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

bone heads arguing over the price of beans in china.

"The State" is not one of the "Several States" of the United States Of America. it is the country, itself. if someone sues the USA, the SCOTUS has jurisdiction. if someone sues the State of Arizona, a lower court has jurisdiction.

But it doesn't say "The State", it says "a State", therefore, one of many.

ETA: added quote from OP

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…

Edited August 1, 2010 by ##########

[justashooter 430]

But it doesn't say "The State", it says "a State", therefore, one of many.

ETA: added quote from OP

wrong.

A State could be the USA, britain, france, italy, etc. this is federal level discussion.

[Pooky 3,825]

wrong.

A State could be the USA, britain, france, italy, etc. this is federal level discussion.

Read the piece as a whole. The clarification of what "A State" refers to is within the the OP. When The Constitution was written, the States of the US were treated almost on the same level as sovereign countries.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

... all of which forms part of the argument the author is making, addressing and countering this issue by reference back to The Constitution itself. Currently, I have seen no counter-argument pointing out a flaw in the author's line of reasoning, but I'm not so close-minded as to rule out the possibility of there being one.

Seriously, you are suspending all logic and reason here. You think that the DOJ is in cahoots the U.S. District Court to circumvent the Constitution? And that no one, except for a few nutjobs on the blogosphere (who also happen to think the President was born in Kenya - hence the connection), are even making this claim. This is beyond nuts. I find it amusing and predictable coming from you as you often inject your emotions into arguments and you can't seem to apply any critical thinking. But continue giving such asinine claims validity because it fits nicely into your viewpoints. What a joke.