Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Crackingham
Bzzzzt. Wrong.

The mere possibility that a question of federal law might arise is being sufficient to satisfy the "arising under"
jurisdictional authorization of Article III [Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall].
And THAT should have removed the insect-brain Pinellas Nazi Magistrate Judge.

90 posted on 03/31/2005 3:56:04 PM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: Diogenesis
The mere possibility that a question of federal law might arise is being sufficient to satisfy the "arising under" jurisdictional authorization of Article III [Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall].

You are correct about that part. If that was all Congress had done there would've been no problem. What they did was go a step further and dictate how the actual legal proceeding would be conducted in court. That's a violation of the separation of powers.

99 posted on 03/31/2005 4:01:47 PM PST by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson