Posted on 07/30/2010 5:19:55 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers dont 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
Original jurisdiction means the power to conduct the trial of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a trial is - you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.
The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:
State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you.
See where it says, State of Arizona? And Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court original Jurisdiction, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you...
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
I sent Gov. Brewer a copy of this, and told her to tell Zero to pound sand until the SCOTUS rules on this.
Excellent!
Thank you!
Tucker does, indeed make for interesting reading. The View of the Constitution was excerpted from a larger work called Tucker's Blackstone Commentaries [also referred to as as the lawyer's Bible] where he took the legal writings of a English legal scholar and made notations on how it related to the US Constitution.
The View of the Constitution was put in pamphlet form and distributed at the request of Congress in order to explain the newly-created Constitution to the People.
Interestingly, what is currently considered 'Constitutional treason' was originally nothing of the sort. Tucker defined it as any attempt to blend the law for the government into the laws that already existed for the People i.e. Natural Law.... which is exactly what the government IS doing at a rapidly expanding pace.
In the United States of America the people have retained the sovereignty in their own hands: they have in each state distributed the government, or administrative authority of the state, into two distinct branches, internal, and external; the former of these, they have confided, with some few exceptions, to the state government; the latter to the federal government.
Since the union of the sovereignty with the government, constitutes a state of absolute power, or tyranny, over the people, every attempt to effect such an union is treason against the sovereignty, in the actors; and every extension of the administrative authority beyond its just constitutional limits, is absolutely an act of usurpation in the government, of that sovereignty, which the people have reserved to themselves.
NOTE B. / OF THE SEVERAL FORMS OF GOVERNMENT / Preliminary Remarks
------
Oh, BTW -
Sorry what was supposed to be a short response turned into a history lecture! LOL!
You're quite welcome!
An earlier response seemed to have launched me into lecture mode, so scroll down the thread if you're interested.
:-)
Tickets available at:
HangThemHighTillTheyDry.com
Article III, sec. 2 actual reads:
"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, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Makes a world of difference.
Finally, a lawyer who actually has read the Constitution! I have been posting this since the suit was filed by filed suit in federal court.
My problem is twofold: 1)I am not a lawyer and I found the citation with no difficulty, but lawyers did not; and 2)why did it take so long?
FWIW, the author is an American, living in Tennessee.
But only for "all the other Cases," that is, other than all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.
The jurisdictional grant composed by Congress, that shares original jurisdiction between SCOTUS and lower courts, dismisses of the word "all" in "all cases ..."
It dismisses the effect by saying that some of the cases will find original jurisdiction in a court other than the Supreme Court.
If this hasn't been challenged yet, Brewer should file a suit. Nothing like raising the stakes to get appropriate attention.
Note this sentence from the case you noted:
(c) The Tenth Amendment does not operate as a limitation upon the powers, express or implied, delegated to the National Government. P. 327 U. S. 102.
And now the Tenth Amendment text:
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.
Apparently “implied” in the ruling means anything the courts want it to mean.
“leave the practice of law to lawyers”
Among the least respected occupations in America, dominators of the yellow pages, disrespecting the Constitution, encouraging the public via shyster TV ads to file sleazy lawsuits (but only if it helps them get rich), advertising on TV to call them only to find that they sold your phone call to a colleague, keeping disciplinary matters and malpractice out of the public eye.
To be sure, there are some decent lawyers (most likely including FR members) but as a whole they are a scourge on society.
I guessing if the Supreme Court wanted to, it could exercise its original grant of jurisdiction and start trying a bunch of federal cases. But given their case output in recent years, I'll bet the 9 wouldn't be too keen on that.
Thank you. Someone had to say it.
Because you're wrong.
Thank you for the information. The salient point is that it was published in the Canadian Free Press, not an American paper. Not even a conservative American paper.
I am not an attorney, but it may be that “Governor in official capacity” is legally not the same as the State of Arizona.
That's the way the statutory jurisdictional grant reads. SCOTUS has original, but not exclusive jurisdiction.
My point is that it's sophistry to read "In all Cases ... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction" as saying "the supreme Court, or whatever Court Congress deems competent."
While the jurisdictional charge isn't an outright stripping, it dilutes the jurisdiction, and is profoundly different from "This court SHALL, in ALL such cases, have original jurisdiction." Would the states have ratified the constitution if they thought the federal government could shuffle their cases to some hick court of Congress's creation?
I would guess this jurisdictional grant has been litigated by a foreign minister or some such. And as you point out, SCOTUS is pretty keen on getting out of a mandatory workload. But too, Congress can increase the size of SCOTUS, and SCOTUS has no obligation to hear all cases en banc.
Ping!
I think that law enforcement is still the domain of the states.
-PJ
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.