Regarding the recent USA Plaintiff vs State of Arizona in the District Court of

Arizona Case number CV-10-1413-PHX-SRB.

Clearly Obama is the leader with a Globalist agenda which cannot be made any
more clear from the statements filed in plaintiff’s complaint, that the power of our
government to govern its citizenry is now emanating from the tyrannical top down
instead of coming from the governed bottom up, creating a corporate interest tyranny
form of government which protects the interest of the wealthy globalist agenda’s interests
instead of a government that protects and concerns itself to the interest and protections of
the common man.
This power struggle between a globalist agenda and the rights of the governed
that currently is overtaking out nation can be clearly seen in the last few cases of our
Supreme Court. Namely, in
1.) Kelo vs New London, a US Constitution Fifth Amendment Case ‘Nor shall private
property be taken for public use’ and held that the term ‘public’ no longer meant simply
public but now meant “public interest’ and gave authority through the power of eminent
domain to take the governed citizenry’s real property homes and convey it over to a
private, ‘for profit’ Corporation, twisting the original intent of the Fifth Amendment into
a perverted disgusting corporate takeover of the rights of the citizenry.
2.) Citizens United vs Federal Elections Commission concerning the
constitutionality of limiting corporations’ independent spending during
campaigns for the Presidency and Congress. Here again, the Corporations won
over the citizenry.
3.) Now in US vs State of Arizona concerning the States constitutional sovereign
right to protect it citizenry from foreign invasion, trafficking of humans, drugs
and guns.

The preamble of our constitution states, “We the people of the United States, in
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide
for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United
States of America.”
US Constitution Article 1 Section 10. “No state shall, without
the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships
of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with
another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of
delay.”

United States Constitution Article IV Section 4 - Republican government

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against [foreign] Invasion; and on
Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened) against domestic Violence.”

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says, "The

powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people."

The Declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-

evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.”

Gonzalez v City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, 476, (9th Cir. 1983) the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that nothing in federal law precludes a city from
enforcing the criminal provisions of immigration law.

Judge Susan Bolton largely ignored key Supreme Court cases such as, DE
CANAS v. BICA, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) 424 U.S. 351 which held that the State of
California’s newly enacted Labor Code Law Section 2805(a) which prohibits an
employer from knowingly employing an undocumented alien was NOT an
unconstitutional regulation pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause of Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA).

Section 2805 (a) of the California Labor Code, which prohibits an employer from
knowingly employing an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence in the United States
if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers, held not to
be unconstitutional as a regulation of immigration or as being pre-empted under the
Supremacy Clause by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Pp. 354-365.

(a) Standing alone, the fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does not
render it a regulation of immigration. Even if such local regulation has some
purely speculative and indirect impact on immigration, it does not thereby become
a constitutionally proscribed regulation of immigration that Congress itself would
be powerless to authorize or approve. Pp. 354-356.

(b) Pre-emption on the basis of congressional intent to "occupy the field" and
thereby invalidate even harmonious state regulation is not required in this case
either because "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other
conclusion" or because "Congress has unmistakably so ordained" that result.
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 . Section 2805 (a) is
clearly within a State's police power to regulate the employment relationship so as
to protect workers within the State, and it will not be presumed that
Congress, in enacting the INA, intended to oust state authority to regulate the
employment relationship covered by 2805 (a) in a manner consistent with
 pertinent federal laws, absent any showing of such intent either in the INA's
wording or legislative history or in its comprehensive scheme for regulating
immigration and naturalization. Rather than there being evidence that Congress
"has unmistakably . . . ordained" exclusivity of federal regulation in the field of
employment of illegal aliens, the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, whose
provisions prohibiting farm labor contractors from employing illegal aliens were
enacted to supplement state action, is persuasive evidence that the INA should not
be taken as legislation expressing Congress' judgment to have uniform federal
regulations [424 U.S. 351, 352] in matters affecting employment of illegal aliens,
and therefore barring state legislation such as 2805 (a). Hines v. Davidowitz, 312
U.S. 52 ; Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 , distinguished. Pp. 356-363.

(c) It is for the California courts to construe 2805 (a), and then to decide in the
first instance whether and to what extent 2805 (a), as construed, is
unconstitutional as conflicting with the INA or other federal laws or regulations.
Pp. 363-365.

In Equal Access Education v. Merten, 325 F. Supp. 2d 655, 673

(E.D. Va. 2004) seven Virginia state colleges and universities were
sued by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund on
behalf of illegal aliens who wished to become students. The Federal
District Court, ruled against the undocumented students, and held
that: "There is no Supremacy Clause bar to these institutions' offering
or denying admission to illegal aliens, provided, with respect to the
latter, that they use only federal standards in doing so and do not
systemically or consistently misapply those standards."

The logical conclusion of the Obama administration's preemption

argument would unconstitutionally remove the healthy tension placed
between the state and federal sovereigns by the Tenth Amendment to
the Constitution, which says, "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

America is best protected not by an all-powerful central

government, but by a strong system of constitutional checks and
balances between each of our local, state, and federal governments.
By seeking to enjoin Sections 1-6 of SB 1070 from taking effect, Plaintiff seeks to
overturn 20 years of precedent. Plaintiff also asks that this Court ignore Congress’
intentions that states and localities play a vital role in immigration enforcement efforts…
Plaintiff’s motion is without merit and a preliminary injunction is not warranted.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE

Plaintiff’s complaint arguments clearly have a globalist, anti-sovereignty agenda.

 Plaintiff USA argues, SB 1070 interferes with the Federal Governments need to
“regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” and that it has exclusive broad authority over
“foreign affairs” “enforcement priorities” effects and impacts on US foreign policy and
the subject of “diplomatic arrangements.” The federal government must “prioritize”
immigration enforcement “priorities.” The Government must “balance” and take into
account multiple, competing national interests, including foreign policy interests, foreign
relations, trade, commerce, foreign nationals, and global concerns.
Plaintiff states that “The opportunity that federal law provides for participation
by state and local officials does not mean that states can enact their own immigration
policies to [match] the national immigration policy; the formulation of immigration
policy and the “balancing of immigration enforcement priorities” is a matter reserved for
the federal government.”
“Attrition through enforcement policy disrupts the national enforcement regime
including the federal governments “prioritization of enforcement and US foreign affairs
priorities.” SB 1070 conflicts with federal immigration policy to accommodate
competing interest of immigration control, national security and public safety, and
foreign relations, a balance implemented prerogatives in the enforcement of the US
immigration laws.
SB 1070 Conflicts with the federal government’s balance of competing
objectives, exercise of discretion, in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, has
foreign policy implications and has “resulted in a breakdown in certain planned bilateral
and multilateral arrangements.”
SB 1070 will impair and burden the federal resources and will place a tremendous
burden on DHS resources.
SB 1070 disrupts enforcement priorities, interferes with the federal governments
enforcement prerogatives and priorities, interferes with the balancing of competing
objectives, interferes with foreign policy objectives, foreign relations and enforcement
areas committed to discretion and flexibility
Can it be any more, clear from these outlandish statements that the power of our
government is coming from the top down instead of from the bottom up?

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION- PREEMPTION UNDER FEDERAL LAW

Conflict preemption occurs when a party cannot comply with both state and
federal law, Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. vs Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-43 (1963) or
when the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v Davidowitz, 312 US 52, 67, (1941)

Only CONGRESSIONAL STATUTES have preemptive force. In this case the

court confused the Executive branch’s enforcement authority with Congress’ plenary
power over immigration. The Executive’s discretionary power to enforce federal
immigration law has no preemptive force.

The Judge Susan Bolton largely ignored key Supreme Court cases such as, DE
CANAS v. BICA, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) 424 U.S. 351 which held that the State of
California’s newly enacted Labor Code Law Section 2805(a) which prohibits an
employer from knowingly employing an undocumented alien was NOT an
unconstitutional regulation pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause of Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA).

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION-VIOLATION OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

Restricts the interstate movement of aliens in a manner prohibited by Article One,

Section Eight of the Constitution.