Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial
Canada Free press ^ | 7-29-10 | Publius Huldah

Posted on 07/30/2010 5:19:55 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic

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…

“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 ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: aliens; arizona; brewer; govjanbrewer; scotus; susanbolton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: afraidfortherepublic

I sent Gov. Brewer a copy of this, and told her to tell Zero to pound sand until the SCOTUS rules on this.


41 posted on 07/30/2010 6:50:08 AM PDT by TStro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Excellent!

Thank you!


42 posted on 07/30/2010 6:51:00 AM PDT by Bigun ("It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
You're quite welcome.

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!

43 posted on 07/30/2010 6:59:06 AM PDT by MamaTexan (NO ONE owes allegiance to an unconstitutional government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Bigun
Excellent! Thank you!

You're quite welcome!

An earlier response seemed to have launched me into lecture mode, so scroll down the thread if you're interested.

:-)

44 posted on 07/30/2010 7:02:37 AM PDT by MamaTexan (NO ONE owes allegiance to an unconstitutional government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
....................upon conviction they will be HANGED in PUBLIC for their crimes.

Tickets available at:

HangThemHighTillTheyDry.com

45 posted on 07/30/2010 7:04:04 AM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic
You left out a very important part of the Section:

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.

46 posted on 07/30/2010 7:09:52 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

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?


47 posted on 07/30/2010 7:12:12 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

FWIW, the author is an American, living in Tennessee.


48 posted on 07/30/2010 7:20:59 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
-- Makes a world of difference. --

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.

49 posted on 07/30/2010 7:28:17 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

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.


50 posted on 07/30/2010 7:29:06 AM PDT by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: naturalized

“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.


51 posted on 07/30/2010 7:40:24 AM PDT by secondamendmentkid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
how then can Congress have the power to take jurisdiction from the Supreme Court, and share it with a lower court of Congressional creation?

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.

52 posted on 07/30/2010 7:47:29 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: naturalized
'leave the practice of law to lawyers. go and learn the difference between original and exclusive jurisdiction. you might want to throw in a lesson on concurrent jurisdiction."

Thank you. Someone had to say it.

53 posted on 07/30/2010 7:51:40 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
"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?"

Because you're wrong.

54 posted on 07/30/2010 7:57:23 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
FWIW, the author is an American, living in Tennessee.

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.

55 posted on 07/30/2010 8:03:50 AM PDT by DustyMoment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

I am not an attorney, but it may be that “Governor in official capacity” is legally not the same as the State of Arizona.


56 posted on 07/30/2010 8:06:36 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
-- I guessing if the Supreme Court wanted to, it could exercise its original grant of jurisdiction and start trying a bunch of federal cases. --

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.

57 posted on 07/30/2010 8:20:33 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Ping!


58 posted on 07/30/2010 8:31:44 AM PDT by HiJinx (I can see November from my front porch - and Mexico from the back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: secondamendmentkid
Faults they share with lots of other folks. That's why we call it total depravity. We are kidding ourselves to think otherwise. Thank God for His mercy.
59 posted on 07/30/2010 10:09:27 AM PDT by naturalized
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
The question I've been asking regarding the "uniform rule of naturalization" is that it doesn't give the power of law enforcement to the federal government, on the power to define the rules for becoming a citizen.

I think that law enforcement is still the domain of the states.

-PJ

60 posted on 07/30/2010 10:17:04 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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