ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

Canada Free press ^ | 7-29-10 | Publius Huldah

[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...

[whence911]

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

“State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority.

[naturalized]

Then maybe she needs a copy of the United States Code:

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1251

Original Jurisdiction

(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.

If she has a problem with the statute, she

[brytlea]

Perhaps all judges should have to take a test on the Constitution every 3 to 5 years in order to keep their positions. And have 25 or so different tests that are randomly assigned.

[MHGinTN]

Since when have you begun believing the bastard-in-chief and his thug Holder actually intend to abide by the Constitution they despise?

[brytlea]

Wow, great post!

[Blood of Tyrants]

I meant, you didn’t finish the Article in the Constitution. You deliberately left out the part about the exceptions.

[afraidfortherepublic]

I didn’t deliberately leave out anything. FReeRepublic has a word limit on articles from that Canada Free Press. I had to shorten it to retain the point of the article within the parameters. Go to the sources and ead the whole thing.

[kevao]

No State is bound by any decision of an inferior court, the Constitution demands the Supreme Court to have Jurisdiction, in light of Judge Bolton’s decision, we have Arrested her and the members of the Attorney Generals office for subverting the Constitution

If she were going to say this, it would be better to do it *before* having her lawyers present arguments to Judge Bolton. She should have refused to submit to lower-court jurisdiction in the first place.

[NTHockey]

How am I wrong? It’s in plain English in the Constitution. Read it, you might learn something.

[OldDeckHand]

'How am I wrong? It’s in plain English in the Constitution. Read it, you might learn something."

Goodness, how have I successfully practiced law for 25+ years without reading the Constitution?

This is why Canada Free Press is an embarrassment to thinking conservatives - they routinely publish pure gibberish, just like this.

I might recommend looking up this...

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1251

You might learn something. Now, why is the US Code important here? Because the original poster conveniently left out the complete constitutional excerpt, which reads in its entirety...

"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."

emphasis added

You might also want to do a little research on the phrases "original jurisdiction", "exclusive jurisdiction" and "concurrent jurisdiction". Just because the Constitution has prescribed original jurisdiction for certain cases, doesn't mean that they Court has exclusive jurisdiction. You are bright enough to understand that, right sport?

[antisocial]

Bookmark

[MamaTexan]

:-)

If you have the time, Tucker is a great read. Despite the fact it's written in a more formal style of English, it's still a lot easier to comprehend than the legalistic gobbledygook that spews out of D.C.

[MamaTexan]

I think the disparate treatment still exists, as Marbury v. Madison asserts Congress cannot expand the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction; how then can Congress have the power to take jurisdiction from the Supreme Court, and share it with a lower court of Congressional creation?

The Supreme Court was authorized by the Constitution, but not created by it. That happened with the judiciary Act of 1789 where Congress created the first Supreme Court. The legal adage of 'that which you create, you have a right to control' probably comes into play. For all practical purposes, Congress can control the USSC if they choose to.

In the Library of Congress, you can read the actual text with various notations concerning the original authority and structure of the Supreme Court.

It's good stuff, but I haven't had a chance to digest it yet and type up the pertinent parts, but I thought you might be interested in the content.

[Cboldt]

-- The Supreme Court was authorized by the Constitution, but not created by it. That happened with the judiciary Act of 1789 where Congress created the first Supreme Court. --

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Probably a quibble, but what Congress did was constitute a Supreme Court by reciting the number of members it would have, and providing pay. Under the terms of the Constitution, it is mandatory for Congress to constitute a Supreme Court. The creation of other federal courts is a matter of Congressional discretion.

-- For all practical purposes, Congress can control the USSC if they choose to. --

I'd say for most, but not all. Certainly it can expand or contract the Supreme Court, and withdraw some grants of jurisdiction. I think the dilution of original jurisdiction is something that SCOTUS desires, and in my view, that desire stems in part from the federal government being WAY too deep into domestic affairs.

Thanks for the link to the old records. I very much enjoy reading through those, and have probed filibuster and militia from those sources. I find the difference in tone and substantive content, between then and now, to be remarkable. Our current Congress is shallow and vainglorious. I think I'll lump SCOTUS and the executive departments in there too.

[Cboldt]

Here's a handy link to the text of the Judiciary Act of 1789: www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm

[eyeamok]

I agree completely, but it isn’t too late to man up and do the right thing. One way to start the ball rolling is to call a special; session of the legislature for the sole purpose of passing an assessment (payroll tax) on ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES in the State to pay For All costs regarding Illegal Aliens, second: Pass another law making ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES in the state to be Financially Responsible for any injury or loss an Arizona Citizen may experience as a direct result of an Illegal Alien. Another Payroll Tax but including Civil Asset Forfeiture if there isn’t enough money left out of Federal Employee Paychecks. Now of course I would make it Progressive just like the Feds, say under 40k 10%, 40-75K 20%, 75-125k 30% and above 125k 50%. They will leave quickly if they have any assets left.

The Constitution says that the feds Shall Guarantee every State against invasion, so let them guarantee with their civil assets. 6 months after this there will be NO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES in the STATE and we can do what we want then.

[MamaTexan]

I find the difference in tone and substantive content, between then and now, to be remarkable. Our current Congress is shallow and vainglorious. I think I'll lump SCOTUS and the executive departments in there too.

I agree entirely!

Thanks for the link, BTW!

[Las Vegas Ron]

You are bright enough to understand that, right sport?

Why are you such a jack ass?

Most here are not attorney's and come to threads like these to read and learn yet you have done nothing except come off as a pompous, arrogant ass during this whole thread.

You are the reason people in your profession are despised and loathed, considered lower than pond scum.

You fit right in with seamless effort.

[OldDeckHand]

"Why are you such a jack ass?"

I see reading isn't your strong suit either. You should try it a little bit before shooting your mouth off.

The person I was responding to, offered up this little gem to me about the Constitution...

"Read it, you might learn something."

I was only responding in-kind, which is what I'll always do, gladly.

And, I'll give you a little additional information - I can't stand it when I see stories like this - usually posted from the same idiotic sources like Canada Free Press - that assert the most anti-intellectual, plainly ignorant musings from the most ridiculous sources.

The Courts have been operating like this since 1789 - 1789 - that's the better part of 220 years. Why this trial is being heard in a District Court isn't a surprise to anyone who has even a remedial understanding of US law, to say nothing of someone who purports to be an attorney, as the author of this article does. Honestly, if a 1l had posed this question in ConLaw, it would be met with laughter and ridicule. To see an alleged attorney make the statement - "ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial" - and for it to be met with agreement, is disturbing.

Conservatism used to be about intellectual excellence and rational superiority, but as of late, it's infected with the most irrational, anti-intellectual charlatans imaginable. Stupidity married to irrationality needs to be met with vitriol.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I was only responding in-kind, which is what I'll always do, gladly.

You're right, my bad and my apologies.

Conservatism used to be about intellectual excellence and rational superiority, but as of late, it's infected with the most irrational, anti-intellectual charlatans imaginable. Stupidity married to irrationality needs to be met with vitriol.

It still is in my view, that's one of the reasons I come here to FR, to sort out the truth from the spin. It's impossible to know everything about everything so we have to rely on others expertise, and there is a lot of it to be found here.

If I may ask, since the Government is not living up to it's Constitutionally mandated protections of States borders from invasion, what are the States to do?