Posted on 08/02/2010 10:07:12 PM PDT by Regulator
Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.
Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
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…
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
A quick reading of the quoted sections of the Constitution reveals no reason for me to disbelieve her write up.
At the moment, the 9th Circuit is giving the Governor and State of Arizona a disrespectful slap by saying they cannot hear the appeal until November. This is willful arrogance on the part of the Leftist judiciary. It would be a good hard slap back at them if Arizona did indeed do what is recommended here.
My opinion is that the attorney should amend his appeal to vacate "judge" Bolton's TRO and drop the case for lack of jurisdiction. Let Holder call John Roberts and see if he can get on the Supreme Court schedule with his outrageous strike against America.
Excellent catch!
bookmark
I think I might grab some popcorn...
This might be worth reclassifying as News to put it in Extended News.
The Constituton was written to keep the federal government out of our face. That fact has been lost for many years.
Boy are you wrong.
Care to elaborate?
The district courts also have original jurisdiction in these types of cases.
Congress has clarified the exclusive original jurisdiction to be only disputes between states:
Title 28, Section 1251 of the US Code:
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
So yes, the District Court in which Judge Bolton sits has jurisdiction to hear this case.
Isn't the act of Congress "clarifying" the role of The SCOTUS, an equal branch of government, unconstitutional on it's face?
No.
Very interesting. It makes sense that the Supreme Court should handle such a direct
The entire country is not harmed if a citizen is somehow reported to ICE, so how can the federal government have standing? Has it happened in RI and what were the consequences?
Oops, such a direct claim?
One of the posts was by me to my ping list from http://antimullah.com and rebutted as without merit. Though it may stilll make a dent when argued
Love it when AntiMullah and I get a story before FR’s greatest (I mean that nicely and respectfully) - sometimes a few days ahead. Unless you are on the list you may not notice.
If anyone her wants on my BROAD subjects ping list, please let me know.
cheers
bookmark
It is my understanding that these days, SCOTUS almost *never* hears a case of true original jurisdiction.
Perhaps you can address that point. Seems also rather clear to me. Please tell us why the Congress has the power to amend the Constitution absent a vote of the States.
For those who don't want to peruse the link, here's the relevant text:
Do you see what this pretended “law” purports to do? It purports to say that lawsuits against States can be tried in federal district courts!
But Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says that in “ALL” Cases in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court “SHALL” have original jurisdiction (i.e., the supreme Court is to conduct the trial). In Our Constitution, We delegated to the supreme Court alone the authority to conduct the trials of cases in which States are a party. We most manifestly did NOT grant that power to inferior tribunals. And Congress may not alter, by any pretended “law”, Our grant of power which was to the supreme Court alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.