In my careful reading of Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2, I fail to understand the reason(s) for the delay in resolving the differences between the Obama badministration and the State of Arizona relative to SB 1070. The cited reference is patently clear as Justice Joseph Story noted in his “A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, Containing a Brief Commentary on Every Clause, Explaining the True Nature.”

I, being an individual of reasonable intelligence, after having read that portion of the Constitution above cited, come to the unalterable conclusion that the Supreme Court has failed to exercise the authority contained therein. This highest court has “original” rather than simple appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, had the Supreme Court on the very day that Obama and Holder excoriated Governor Brewer and her administration for signing a bill he called “misguided” and vowed a review of it.

SB 1070 was the toughest Immigration Law ever passed by one of the several states. A careful reading of SB 1070 reveals the obvious fact that it rally parrots federal law. Attorney General Holder as is his habit opened his mouth and put both feet in. Both Holder and Obama laid claim to federal jurisdiction in the matter and invited opponents to join the United States in legal action against Arizona. Several organizations and legal entities accepted the invitation and inundated Arizona with multiple litigious actions.

Who or which entity violated which law? Arizona has not only the right but also the obligation set forth in Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3 to repel alien invaders when her safety and wellbeing were in imminent danger. Arizona did not initiate such straightforward aggressive action. The State acted in a very temperate manner.

Who or which entity was legally obligated to take immediate and forceful action? Both Obama and Holder claimed the sole right in the area of immigration and that Arizona was in violation of a power held by the federal government. Their assertion is only partially correct and, actually, Obama and the federal government failed miserably as was their duty under the provisions of Article IV, Section 4 to protect each state against invasion. The failure of the federal government to act in a timely fashion, and the antagonistic actions of outside entities should have leveraged the Supreme Court to insert itself into the fray under the provisions of Article III, Section 2, final sentence.

In light of the foregoing, the high court is duty bound to assert its claim to primacy in this badly handled matter. The Supreme Court should hand down a ruling clearing the path for Arizona to protect her sovereignty and eject the foreign invaders. The Court should simultaneously render a declaratory judgment finding that the Executive the has been derelict in his obligations and is instructed to provide immediate assistance as requested by Arizona and the other southern Border States to rid themselves of all illegal foreign invaders.

A further action may be in order. Because of the foreign invasion. It is reasonable for the Unites States to request compensation from the Government of Mexico to recompense Arizona, Texas, New Mexico and California for their surplus expenditures.

Lastly, do not the acts of Obama and Holder amount to High Crimes and Misdemeanors subject to impeachment? If that question were put to me, I would answer with a resounding, YES!