Posted on 02/01/2011 5:23:37 AM PST by Servant of the Cross
'If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
Federal Judge Roger Vinson opens his decision declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional with that citation from Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison in 1788. His exhaustive and erudite opinion is an important moment for American liberty, and yesterday may well stand as the moment the political branches were obliged to return to the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers envisioned.
As Judge Vinson took pains to emphasize, the case is not really about health care at all, or the wisdom—we would argue the destructiveness—of the newest entitlement. Rather, the Florida case goes to the core of the architecture of the American system, and whether there are any remaining limits on federal control. Judge Vinson's 78-page ruling in favor of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, among others, is by far the best legal vindication to date of Constitutional principles that form the outer boundaries of federal power.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
So much for dialogue ...
Signing out, now. I have obsessions of my own that demand attention and simply don’t leave enough time to service yours any further.
21stCenturion
Thank you Judge Vinson! You are a courage and patriotic man.
Article III, Section 2 gives Congress the power to change the jurisdiction of the courts by legislation. You know, the part you keep overlooking, as was pointed out to you earlier.
As was also pointed out to you, Congress exercised this authority within a few years after the ratification of the Constitution, when they were establishing the lower courts.
You think this has been going on for over 220 years, and you're the first person smart enough to see a flaw here? No, everything is legitimate, and within proper Constitutional bounds, and has been that way for over two centuries.
Right. Now you're getting it. The Constitution DOES NOT include the word exclusive when assigning jurisdiction. It prescribes original jurisdiction, not exclusive jurisdiction.
"In other words you are arguing the Constitution can changed simply by act of Congress instead of the procedures to change the Constitution detailed in Article V via the amendment process. "
No one has "changed" the Constitution. Just because you keep repeating it, won't make that any less true.
"It's not me saying how it should work. It is what the Constitution states."
No. It's what you misinterpret the Constitution stating.
The Constitution gives to the Legislature the specific authority to establish regulations of the court(s). Assigning concurrent jurisdiction for lower trial courts is well-within the Legislature's authority, especially considering that the Constitution - as you have so eloquently stated - does not demand exclusive jurisdiction for these cases, but original jurisdiction instead.
IMHO, you are either 1) a troll; 2) completely closed-minded to listening to another's point; or 3) just plain stubborn to a fault.
"Original" does not mean "Exclusive". You're the one that claimed the Constitution states "exclusive" by how YOU interpret "original". Your definition of "original" is incorrect as illustrated by over 220 years of jurisprudence. This has been painstakingly explained to you multiple times now. Sheesh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
DefLib’s dodgy tactics remind me SO MUCH of Monty Python’s Argument Clinic sketch ...
This is Futile !
One man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
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.