Like a lot of other people, I frequently get emails passed around that the senders don't check out before they forward, or in the case of whoever was running the Clark County GOP web site a year or two ago, stupidly put one of those up, only to receive national ridicule (rightfully) for being gullible enough to believe the tripe they posted.
Well, I got one of those last night... one of those damning, to-good-to-be-true indictments of government. The person who sent it to me admitted that they hadn't checked it out... just forwarded it (Which means that there was a very high likelihood that it's false in either one or more critical elements used to buttress the case.)
But this one...
In a nutshell, it's rather simple:
As we all know by now, a federal court judge hacked up Arizona's HB 1070, the local enforcement effort to stop state government generally and state taxpayers particularly from being overrun by illegal aliens and the services they require as a result of federal government malfeasance in their deliberate failure to enforce immigration laws in the state.
The problem?
A plain language reading of the United States Constitution seems to indicate that the judge in question had no right to rule, and that the US Supreme Court should have been the jurisdiction from the beginning which resolved this case.
Here's Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
Section 2. 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 all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.The boldfaced portion above says "In all Cases.... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."
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.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial
shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
A relatively recent Supreme Court decision, Carcieri, uses the plain language standard to invalidate Interior's right to take land into trust for Indian Tribes.
(a) When a statute’s text is plain and unambiguous, United States v. Gonzales, 520 U. S. 1 , the statute must be applied according to its terms, see, e.g., Dodd v. United States, 545 U. S. 353 .
Now, I understand that the Constitution is NOT a "statute." But I cannot see and have yet to hear where the Constitution is not held to the same standard.
Which, of course, brings us to the case in question:
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity,
Defendants.
Can anyone in the legal profession tell me:
How is it that any court, outside the plain-language requirement described above, may rule on this case?
Looks rather straight forward to me.
.
