Posted on 07/31/2010 11:37:27 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
The 1st paragraph is a grant of judicial power, in the aggregate. The 2nd paragraph carves that judicial power into original jurisdiction (which means to try the case), and appellate jurisdiction.
There are few because SCOTUS and Congress colluded to provide joint original jurisdiction, between SCOTUS and lower courts. SCOTUS has the option to take original jurisdiction in any case in which a state is a party (but see limited subject matter jurisdiction in the 1st paragraph).
Hat tip to Mr Rogers, see http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/32-original-jurisdiction.html
Thanks for the link. I think if I were Jan Brewer, I would appeal directly to the SC.
Thanks for your analysis. The state of Arizona tells the Federal Government that it will assist the Federal effort to enforce immigration laws. The Federal Government doesn’t want assistance because it would be a burden. Bolton worried about the burden to the poor helpless Federal Government. A couple of things here. First, these people accepted the job, and they must accept the burdens of that job. Second, is there any possibility that these fools will ever understand the burdens to the citizens because of presence of so many law breakers?
I'm of similar mind, that she should take a direct appeal. I'm pretty sure SCOTUS would decline, and that has to be factored into the calculus. SCOTUS is arrogant, with a capital "A," and would likely resent being put in the political spotlight, when Brewer can deflect the attention to the 9th Circuit.
If I was her, I'd also mobilize my state militia, and consider conscription into the national guard or state guard, and assert an armed force against entry other than through federal checkpoints.
I'd be acting to embarrass the crap out of the useless and corrupt federal government.
If the 9th overturns Bolton, it goes back to her court. Right?
Yes, but only to implement the order described by the 9th Circuit. That order can be just about anything, from "find more facts, then decide again," to "remove the injunction, period."
And keep in mind that the only thing before the 9th is the preliminary injunction enjoining Arizona from enforcing the mandatory effect of the law. The governor can, of course, make it an executive policy for the law enforcement to inquire about the immigration status for 100% of the people it develops reasonable suspicion of. In other words, she can implement by "executive order," rather than by legislation.
Doing so would produce additional facts that could undermine the grounds for much (if not all) of Bolton's decision. For example, ICE does not become overloaded with requests; legal aliens aren't unreasonably detained, etc.
It's hard to keep track of the full game -- news reports tend to isolate attention to small facets, and often to irrelevant facets.
That's what I thought. And with the 9th's propensity for going against 'the man', there's slightly better than even odds they'll overturn. imho.
On that second point regarding effect of the law. Since the Sanctuary policy provision stood, I can't see how practical application of the law is truly effected, regardless of which way the 9th goes. Aliens are still mandated to carry their papers, officers can still inquire about status as 1070 provided, "when practicable".
I guess that could all change if they ever get around to a decision on merits.
I don't understand why Arizona didn't challenge the federal courts jurisdiction in this matter.
Arizona ISN'T trying to make a rule for aliens to become citizens, or to act in a manner contrary to the federal government's authority to make a uniform rule of naturalization.
Arizona is simply doing it's civil duty in relation to the denizens of the State.
The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states. And as the right of denization did not make a citizen of an alien, but only placed him in a middle state, between the two, giving him local privileges only, which he was so far from being entitled to carry with him into another state, that he lost them by removing from the state giving them, the inconveniencies which might result from the indirect communication of the rights of naturalized citizens, by different modes of naturalization prevailing in the several states, could not be apprehended.
George Tucker
Interesting. Thanks.
This is NOT an original case. It is like the twelve or so cases that I took to the Supreme Court challenging state election laws. All of them began at the trial level, and in due course reached the Supreme Court.
John / Billybob
bttt
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.