Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ken H
I would interpret all other cases before mentioned to refer to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party , not to the cases in the first paragraph.

The previous sentence says that cases "affecting ambassadors etc." are those in which the SC has original jurisdiction. This sentence therefore cannot grant appellate jurisdiction to the same cases. That would be absurd.

Consequently, it is clear that Congress cannot limit the SC's (original) jurisdiction with regard to ambassadors, etc., and that Congrss can limit the SC's (appellate) jurisdiction with regard to "all cases, in law and equity, etc.".

That said, I think that this proposed bill is silly. Congress should not pretend that it can vote itself the power to declare that something is constitutional, and, as the earlier poster pointed out, with the same majority it could simply impeach a Supreme Court justice which it felt had rendered an outrageous decision.

14 posted on 03/18/2004 11:41:02 PM PST by SedVictaCatoni (The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a rabid socialist. Look it up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: SedVictaCatoni
It made sense when I wrote it, but not when I read it.
16 posted on 03/18/2004 11:51:15 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: SedVictaCatoni; Ken H
Actually, while I was posting, SedVictaCatoni said it much better, with a lot less verbiage..
18 posted on 03/19/2004 12:42:43 AM PST by Drammach (44 Automag.. where are you??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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