[21stCenturion]

Do you EVER argue in anything less than ‘absolutes’ ?

In your commentary here, you don’t seem to be responding to what others are saying as much as reiterating your own points.

F’rinstance, I asked WHY SCOTUS hasn’t asserted its ‘original jurisdiction’, NOT whether it had such jurisdiction. By its restraint here, SCOTUS appears to be satisfied to provide appellate jurisdiction if and when this case ‘arrives’.

In fact, SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over ALL judicial matters with original jurisdiction over SOME. I can’t find any information to suggest that SCOTUS MUST be the ONLY trier of fact in such a case, which appears to be the substance of your argument.

F’rinstance, you say “SCOTUS does not have any choice for cases to start at the appellate division if those cases do not involve Ambassadors, other public Ministers, consuls or states per Article III Section II.” What is your authority for this ?

As I understand it, SCOTUS has absolute authority to CHOOSE to accept or reject ANY case brought before it and need not explain why in either instance.

F’rinstance, you say “ ... A state need only reassert its 10th Amendment rights by passing a resolution in the state legislature ...”. You seem to expect the entire Federal ‘apparatus’ — Executive, Legislative and Judicial — to simply roll over limp and helpless in the face of such an assault.

Whatever possessed Mr. Lincoln to oppose the Confederate States when faced by a similar ‘power play’ ? Had he never read his Constitution and discovered how powerless he truly was in the face of such ‘a resolution’ ?

I tried to follow your final paragraph but must confess I became somewhat lost. Essentially, you seem to —

reject the power of the SCOTUS to define ‘constitutional’;

reject the power of the Congress to re-define its own Acts by future Acts;

and finish by asserting that ONLY the States define the scope, intent and application of the 10th Amendment and that such a determination is immune to review by ANY ‘lesser Authority’.

On that note, I will resort to quoting the immortal Jerry Lee — ‘Baby, you leave me Breathlessssssss !’

Unlike Imam Hussein, I am no ‘Constitutional Law’ scholar, but I DID stay in a Holiday Inn Express recently and I DO have a copy of the Constitution in residence in my computer which I review from time to time.

One man’s opinion.

21stCenturion

[Defend Liberty]

Do you EVER argue in anything less than ‘absolutes’ ?

Not when the Constitution clearly states the requirements of a branch of government.

F’rinstance, I asked WHY SCOTUS hasn’t asserted its ‘original jurisdiction’, NOT whether it had such jurisdiction. By its restraint here, SCOTUS appears to be satisfied to provide appellate jurisdiction if and when this case ‘arrives’.

Article III Section II does not give the judicial branch the option of deciding if cases involving Ambassadors, other public Ministers, consuls or the states should be delegated to the appellate division. SCOTUS must be the first court to hear these types of cases.

In fact, SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over ALL judicial matters with original jurisdiction over SOME. I can’t find any information to suggest that SCOTUS MUST be the ONLY trier of fact in such a case, which appears to be the substance of your argument.

It's in Article III Section II as I posted earlier. To quote: "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". Shall means must in legal circles. It doesn't get any clearer.

As I understand it, SCOTUS has absolute authority to CHOOSE to accept or reject ANY case brought before it and need not explain why in either instance.

SCOTUS can reject a case on its merits after being reviewed but it doesn't mean SCOTUS can reject a case involving those parties mentioned above on the basis of delegating them to the appellate division.

Whatever possessed Mr. Lincoln to oppose the Confederate States when faced by a similar ‘power play’ ? Had he never read his Constitution and discovered how powerless he truly was in the face of such ‘a resolution’ ?

Which lawsuit involving the states against Unconstitutional Obamacare discusses secession?

I tried to follow your final paragraph but must confess I became somewhat lost. Essentially, you seem to —

reject the power of the SCOTUS to define ‘constitutional’

reject the power of the Congress to re-define its own Acts by future Acts;

and finish by asserting that ONLY the States define the scope, intent and application of the 10th Amendment and that such a determination is immune to review by ANY ‘lesser Authority’.

SCOTUS is not the final authority on the Constitution. If that were true then they could arbitrarily change the Constitution at their discretion thereby negating not only the 10th Amendment but the Bill Of Rights altogether. Keep in mind Supreme Court Justices can be impeached. If they were the final authority on the Constitution then they would be above and beyond reproach.

Congress cannot change the Constitution by merely passing an act. If that were true then there would be no question Obamacare is Unconstitutional since it is an act passed by Congress. The Constitution can only be changed in accordance with the procedures to change(Amend) the Constitution in Article V.

The states or the people are the final authority on the Constitution. It was the states that gave the federal government their powers when they passed the Constitution. The Federal government did not create and give the states powers by writing and passing the Constitution. The states and the people assert and reassert their rights by invoking the 10th Amendment when violated by the federal government. Our founding fathers recognized the people are the final authority in the Declaration of Independence by stating the people have the right to later or abolish the government.

Unlike Imam Hussein, I am no ‘Constitutional Law’ scholar, but I DID stay in a Holiday Inn Express recently and I DO have a copy of the Constitution in residence in my computer which I review from time to time.

Good! More people should do as you. I have a pocket Constitution I keep with me. The founding fathers didn't write the Constitution exclusively for Constitutional scholars. It was written for we the people. They written in some form of legalese only for Attorneys to understand. They wrote the Constitution in layman's terms for all American citizens to understand.