Ariz. Illegal Immigration Law Judge Threatened

(AP)  Authorities say a federal judge in Phoenix has been getting some threats since her ruling on Arizona's controversial immigration law.

David Gonzales, the U.S. Marshal for Arizona, says U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has received thousands of phone calls and e-mails since her preliminary injunction Wednesday that put key provisions of the state's immigration law on hold.

Gonzales says some of the messages sent to Bolton are positive, but others are "from people venting and who have expressed their displeasure in a perverted way."

Gonzales says his agents are taking some of the threats to Bolton seriously. He refused to discuss any extra security measures, which U.S. marshals routinely provide federal judges.

Arizona officials have appealed Bolton's ruling.

More Immigration Coverage

After Ariz. Immigration Decision, What's Next?
Judge Hands Victory to AZ Immigration Law Foes
Read Judge Bolton's Decision
Arizona Immigration Decision: Early Reaction
Ruling Accepts Administration's Main Arguments
Tension Builds As Arizona Immigration Law Looms
Arizona Helped Deport 26,000 without New Law
Ariz. Gov. Seeks Dismissal of Immigration Suit
Neo-Nazi Group Patrolling U.S. Border
Is Political Rhetoric Hurting Ariz. Tourism?

[slow-news-day]

"by Mortar_29 July 30, 2010 10:34 AM EDT
Maintain, do you want an intelligent debate or do you want to act like Slow?"


Awww, poor Mortie. I just use your own techniques against you. Funny you don't realize that.

And thanks for admitting yesterday that you're a liar! Anyone who wants to see the proof can go here and read for a page or so:
http://*******/a9gp7


.

[pasha128]

by Mortar_29 July 30, 2010 11:24 AM EDT
He did say that. And he was right. The right to bear arms doesnt exist because it is written in the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms existed before the document was even written.

---

Mortar -- based on your premise Criminals have the right to bear arms -- while incarcerated? If not where in the constitution does it say so?
Arfterh they are released (even Violent criminals)? IF not where does it say so in the constitution? The mentally impaired deserve to carry arms also according to your premise. If not, where in the constitution are they denied that right?

According to your premise free speech should eliminate libel laws, slander laws, inciting to riot laws, inciting panic and I guess even telling or delivering documents to our enemies revealing our secrets. If not, please cite the specific text in the US CONSTITUTION that allows these restrictions to free speech to be valid?

[tsigili]

Not cool. Do NOT threaten someone with physical violence. Simply vote her OFF the bench, in the next election. That will be punishment enough.

Besides....she hasn't won.....just extended the process.

[pasha128]

Mortar --

Does the US Constitution specify how congress operates within each chamber of the congress? No each chamber makes it's own rules.

Does the US Constitution specify how the Executive branch structures itself to enforce the laws?

It does grant congress powers to restrain the president in the legal statutes it passes.

Does the US Constitution specify how the judicial branch is structures in any detail? The number of Supreme Court Justices -- no The number and reason for inferior courts - NO The methods by which the court conducts it's business - NO again.

It does grant congress the powers to determine inferior court requirements without limiting what they will be.

The constitution only define a very small number of things in great detail such as the crime of treason, the amendment process for the constitution {where a constitutional convention other than name is undefined), the succession to the presidency (which has been modified significantly), the appointment of a Vice-President (which was added).

It defines who has what powers but does not generally (with a few notable exceptions) define limits to those powers. Even the Second amendment that everyone loves to debate sounds absolute but we accept restrictions on gun ownership for criminals and the mentally impaired. Freedom of Speech is in the constitution but we prohibit libel, slander, inciting riots and panic. the 5th amendment exists against self incrimination but as part of accepting a license to drive we agree to produce evidence that lack thereof would prove our guilt and that production of documentation which could be viewed as the result of a search or seizure is also not protected because we agree in advance to do so.

Clearly the simple meaning of the words of the Constitution are clearly not SIMPLE AT ALL. In the 1700's in many places a person without a gun could be constrained in the ability to feed himself and his family. On the other hand in current times that is less of an issue. I doubt in the 1700's restrictions on criminals would have been tolerated after serving their sentence -- even the civil war soldiers from the south were sent home with suitable armaments to provide for themselves and their families. Applying 4th and 5th amendment protections to modern inventions like phones or the telegraph or radio or television could not have even been imagined by most of the "Founding Fathers". So in reality the constitution's words do not change but because the times do the meaning of those words as they apply to law resulting from the evolution of man and things appear to make the constitution change. In fact it does not -- the law like everything around it evolves with people and things.

[Mortar_29]

You are correct on some of this. The Constitution gives the Federal specific, enumerated powers. The Federal government is then allowed to make laws within those powers in order to make sure they are advancing those powers. But, they have NO POWER to make laws outside of the enumerated powers given to them.

So, they are given the power of the post office. Thus they can make postal laws on how it will work.

It is given the power over coining money. Thus, it can make laws and regulations on how money is coined.

But nowhere in the Constitution was it given the power over education, or healthcare, or welfare, or bailouts of corporations, or retirement programs. It isnt there.

There is no evolution of the Constititution outside of the amendment process. To think otherwise means the Constitution is meaningless, and is just made up as we go along. Not what we want. Not what the FOunders started.

The Founders understood that the future may provide that the Constitution's meaning must change. Thus, they gave us the ability to change the meaning...the amendment process.

But nowhere did the FOunders give the Federal government the power to change the meaning and give itself more powers (which means they are taking them away from the States). They were clear in their writings, and clear in the 9th and 10th Amendments on this!!

Only States can change the meaning of the Constitution. Only states can give power to the Federal government or take away powers. The Federal government can onlyu do what those powers are that are given to them. And they can only make laws within those powers. Nothing more.

All other powers remain with those that own them...the States and the People.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." Thomas Jefferson

[pasha128]

Others will argue that general welfare or reasonable and necessary cover education.

The national ability to control money is obviously part of coining money -- where would we be without a federal standard for the money supply -- in dire straights our businesses only accept the US dollar NOW -- imagine if there werE 50 states with different currency standards.

CLEARLY AS THE WORLD EVOLVES SO DOES THE LAW AND SO DOES THE CONSTITUTION -- otherwise I guess we need to ban Television. radio, the telegraph, the telephone and modern medical procedures and return to those of the 1700's - the Founding Fathers had no idea that was coming. let's see that also leads to a ban on repeating rifles, cartridges, machine guns, airplanes, etc. Your entire premise is preposterous. The words in the Constitution somehow have to be interpreted to deal with these devices never considered by the Founding Fathers.

[Mortar_29]

"That there ought to be one court of supreme and final jurisdiction, is a proposition which is not likely to be contested. The reasons for it have been assigned in another place, and are too obvious to need repetition. The only question that seems to have been raised concerning it, is, whether it ought to be a distinct body or a branch of the legislature. The same contradiction is observable in regard to this matter which has been remarked in several other cases. The very men who object to the Senate as a court of impeachments, on the ground of an improper intermixture of powers, advocate, by implication at least, the propriety of vesting the ultimate decision of all causes, in the whole or in a part of the legislative body.

The arguments, or rather suggestions, upon which this charge is founded, are to this effect: "The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body. This is as unprecedented as it is dangerous. In Britain, the judical power, in the last resort, resides in the House of Lords, which is a branch of the legislature; and this part of the British government has been imitated in the State constitutions in general. The Parliament of Great Britain, and the legislatures of the several States, can at any time rectify, by law, the exceptionable decisions of their respective courts. But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless." This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of the convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution; and as far as it is true, is equally applicable to most, if not to all the State governments. There can be no objection, therefore, on this account, to the federal judicature which will not lie against the local judicatures in general, and which will not serve to condemn every constitution that attempts to set bounds to legislative discretion."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 81

[Mortar_29]

Maintain, are you that ignorant. I know who authored it. I know who was in the room. I know who signed it. I know what they wrote and what they said.

I also know what the state legislatures said when they ratified it. And they were in agreement with what Hamilton has written here, in agreement with the idea of a constitutional republic and all that goes with it.

Again, your ignorance is showing. Please take the time to study the FOunders. The Federalist Papers were written in order to explain to everyone what this Constitution is about and what it means.

Start there.

[Mortar_29]

Here is a quote from one of the guys in the room, if that helps you"

"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch." Thomas Jefferson

[pasha128]

by Mortar_29 July 30, 2010 10:25 AM EDT
What is the problem? A judge is to ascertain a law based on the plain meaning of that law, as expressed by those who wrote that law. That is the fundamental basis of constitutional law...that the law rules, not the decisions of men.


---

MORTAR -- THE SUPPORTER OF ACTIVISTS JUDGING -- insisting on inserting words where NO WORDS exist to manipulate the meaning of the Founding Fathers and the CONSTITUTION. THESE ARE YOUR WORDS NOT Hamilton's -- "... , as expressed by those who wrote that law. ..."

[Mortar_29]

Sorry. You again need to look up Hamilton and all that he wrote. As well as the rest of the Founders. Start with the Federalist Papers...it'll help you!

Oh, and I hate activist judges. I agree with Jefferson that the judiciary is the despotic branch. I want the Congress to impeach ANY judge that deviates from the Constitution and tries to institute their own opinion.

[Mortar_29]

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security" James Madison

[pasha128]

Which word in the following text do you not understand -- specifically the part "... It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning ..."


" ... A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. ..."

[pasha128]

Hey Mortar the preceding post is for you. ---

[Mortar_29]

What is the problem? A judge is to ascertain a law based on the plain meaning of that law, as expressed by those who wrote that law. That is the fundamental basis of constitutional law...that the law rules, not the decisions of men.

[Hialeahtom]

This judge is very irresponsible to make such a ruling without the solution to the Federal Government's inability to handle the nation's immigration policy. If the inept Federal Government has no solution, do we have to live with it? All voters of this great country, wake-up!
We sent wrong bunch of dirty diapers to Washington D.C.. We need to change the diapers time to time, as everyone should know.

[larrryshrine]

No matter what you believe, it is not acceptable to threaten a federal judge. In fact, it is not acceptable to threaten anyone, whether by words or actions. Take it to the polls, vote your preference, stay within the law. Obey the Constitution, even if you feel another doesn't. To not do so is to invite chaos and anarchy.

[Mortar_29]

Very true.

[Mortar_29]

By the way, please tell the president, congress and SCOTUS to start obeying the Constitution also. By them ignoring it as they have for decades, they are breeding anarchy!

[irreverent1-2009]

Let's encircle the State of Arizona with a border fence to keep those "snowbirds" down there year-round.

[Mortar_29]

Who is "let's"??

I am sure most of the States around Arizona disagree with you and would not permit a fence between them and their sister state.

[Mortar_29]

Please read what is written at that link...as taken Slow at his word is a dangerous proposition. If you want the cliff note version, here it is:

Habitual liars Slow and usaisback dont like that I turned their lies back on them. You see, in the debate, since we were dealing with habitual lies from them...I turned it back on them and used the same tactics they were using on all of us.

And they dont like it.

It was fun though. Watching them squirm. Guess they didnt like it. Maybe they should think in the future about lying to and about others.