ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority... Against Arizona & Governor Brewer

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.

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…

I am going to go through this one more time, not for your benefit, but for anyone reading this who wants an honest understanding of the issue.

The issue is very simple:

In 1789 the United States Constitution became effective. It included the following sentence:

“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.”

The question before us is, is the original jurisdiction in this sentence exclusive, or non-exclusive? Because the Constitution gave broad power to Congress also to vest the judicial power in inferior courts.

Well, it doesn’t SAY it is exclusive. Did the founders nevertheless intend to IMPLY that it is exclusive?

So what was the intent of the founders? Well, we don’t have to guess.

Because in 1789 the President and the first Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave part of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the sentence I quoted ALSO to the district courts.

So we know for a FACT that the collective understanding of the first President and the first Congress, many of whom were closely involved in framing the Constitution, was that it was NON-EXCLUSIVE.

You cite one founder, Alexander “National Bank” Hamilton, ironically arguably the only one of them who could be considered anything close to a “progressive” (none of them in fact were) for the notion that it is exclusive. Well, be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that as evidence goes, his one view simply is not very significant compared to the collective understanding of the first president and the first congress as embodied in actual legislation.

And you cite John Marshall. But Marshall is the furthest thing from an objective, dispassionate observer. His agenda was to establish as much power as possible in the hands of the Supreme Court. In some ways he succeeded, in others he did not. In this attempt, he ultimately did not.

And that is the sum of the issue. It’s not complicated.

The other nonsense, such as your trying to smear those who adhere to the 1789 state of facts as “progressives,” is just trying to throw dirt in the eyes of people.

And how ironic. Most of us who are strong supporters of RKBA insist that it must be interpreted based on the intent of the founders in 1789 when the Constitution became effective.

And here you are smearing those who interpret Article III in light of the 1789 understanding of that provision, which has been long established, as “progressives.” I suppose there really is nothing that is beneath you.

Let me add one more thing.

I am beginning to get a whiff here that you or others here may believe the “exclusive” interpretation is somehow more of a “Christian” position than the “non-exclusive” interpretation. I hope I am completely wrong about that.

Because if you are holding yourself out not only as a superior Constitutional interpreter than the men who passed the 1789 Judiciary Act, but also as a superior Christian to those men or anyone else who adheres to the “non-exclusive” interpretation, then I will just say this.

If you are without sin, then cast all the stones you want. Otherwise, I would advise you to be very careful, brother.

ad hominem appears to be part of your arsenal. Is that some kind of defense mechanism or do you use it mostly as part of an offensive campaign?

You have yet to produce what Marlowe has asked for, and his insistence on the actual language of the Constitution does stand in contrast to the way the Constitution is handled by “living document” adherents....generally “progressive” in other areas of their thinking, too.

Those who disagree with you are “a-wipes” stupid, etc.

Yet, none have answered the basic question.

No, it is because I have zero tolerance and no respect for dishonesty.

If you can’t understand why the contemporaneous, collective interpretation of the president and congress embodied in an official action such as legislation is for purposes of constitutional jurisprudence considered far better evidence of intent than some particular individual’s statement in a journal or a letter, then you are going to have a problem with constitutional jurisprudence.

I am arguing the exact OPPOSITE of the “living document” theory.

My position is pure “originalist” theory.

My sole criterion is “what did the founders intend Article III to mean in 1789.” That is called “originalist” doctrine.

And unlike some other cases of constitutional jurisprudence, where people have to argue from what person X said in a letter, or what person Y stated in a newspaper, in this question we are fortunate because we know for a fact what the collective view of this group of men, the first president and the first congress, who to a large extent were responsible for actually writing the constitution, was on this very issue in 1789.

Let me add one more twist of intent: From Federalist paper 81

These reasons seem sufficient to satisfy a candid mind, that the want of such a power would have been a great defect in the plan. Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal. Though it may rather be a digression from the immediate subject of this paper, I shall take occasion to mention here a supposition which has excited some alarm upon very mistaken grounds. It has been suggested that an assignment of the public securities of one State to the citizens of another, would enable them to prosecute that State in the federal courts for the amount of those securities; a suggestion which the following considerations prove to be without foundation.

Maybe I misunderstood Mr Hamilton but it seams the intent was “it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation”

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.