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

Skip to comments.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority... Against Arizona & Governor Brewer
Canada Free Press ^ | July 30 2010 | Publius Huldah

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 ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: arizona; illegalimmigration; sb1070
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
Have not seen this posted here. The original version is at the Author's website / blog.

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.

1 posted on 08/02/2010 10:07:15 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Excellent catch!


2 posted on 08/02/2010 10:11:03 PM PDT by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pin up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

bookmark


3 posted on 08/02/2010 10:16:04 PM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

I think I might grab some popcorn...


4 posted on 08/02/2010 10:16:50 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

This might be worth reclassifying as News to put it in Extended News.


5 posted on 08/02/2010 10:19:56 PM PDT by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pin up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

The Constituton was written to keep the federal government out of our face. That fact has been lost for many years.


6 posted on 08/02/2010 10:22:20 PM PDT by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Awesome find! Photobucket
7 posted on 08/02/2010 10:23:48 PM PDT by xuberalles (The Right Stuff: The Best Anti-Liberal Novelties On The Net ! http://www.zazzle.com/xuberalles)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

Boy are you wrong.


8 posted on 08/02/2010 10:23:48 PM PDT by Domangart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Domangart
Boy are you wrong.

Care to elaborate?

9 posted on 08/02/2010 10:27:26 PM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Yes, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases between the US and a state; but not exclusive original jurisdiction.

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.

10 posted on 08/02/2010 10:28:32 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob
This has already been posted from other places and Congressman Billy Bob already shot it down due to not meeting the definition. It is disinformation from a amateur.
11 posted on 08/02/2010 10:34:39 PM PDT by Domangart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
Congress has clarified the exclusive original jurisdiction to be only disputes between states:

Isn't the act of Congress "clarifying" the role of The SCOTUS, an equal branch of government, unconstitutional on it's face?

12 posted on 08/02/2010 10:35:42 PM PDT by JrsyJack (a healthy dose of buckshot will probably get you the last word in any argument.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
"Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it! "

WHY do we have someone that STUPID as Attorney General of the United States of America?

RIFOil


13 posted on 08/02/2010 10:37:02 PM PDT by FrankR (It doesn't matter what they call us, only what we answer to....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JrsyJack

No.


14 posted on 08/02/2010 10:38:07 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

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?


15 posted on 08/02/2010 10:38:27 PM PDT by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skr

Oops, such a direct claim?


16 posted on 08/02/2010 10:39:19 PM PDT by skr (May God confound the enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Domangart; All

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


17 posted on 08/02/2010 11:07:26 PM PDT by FARS (Be well, be happy and thrive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

bookmark


18 posted on 08/02/2010 11:15:01 PM PDT by jcsjcm (American Patriot - follow the Constitution and in God we Trust - Laus Deo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JrsyJack

It is my understanding that these days, SCOTUS almost *never* hears a case of true original jurisdiction.


19 posted on 08/02/2010 11:16:17 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
In the original blog ( Publius Huldah), in Point 3 she specifically deals with 28 sec 1251. And points out that the statute clearly amends the Constitution.

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.

20 posted on 08/02/2010 11:27:53 PM PDT by Regulator (Watch Out!! The Americans are On the March!! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 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