When SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, follow the law

USConstitution ^ | 2/19/19 | self

[Jacquerie]

<>Congress can abolish the Supreme Court,<>

Uh, no. We the Sovereign People created the Supreme Court. Per Article III, Congress can and should trim Scotus, but it cannot abolish it.

[jjotto]

Kudos to you!

The USSC needs to reassert exclusive original jurisdiction for states suing the Federal government. The USSC can impose severe sanctions on state AGs if they feel states are clogging the SC with meritless lawsuits.

[morphing libertarian]

Look at the termination paragraph my 22. As for certainty, not certain I will wake up tomorrow. Legal issues involve theories of cases. I am not an attorney but my theory is based on that wording till I see something that supersedes

[Svartalfiar]

There is a difference between original jurisdiction and exclusive original jurisdiction. The Constitution does not grant exclusive original jurisdiction over state-part cases to the Supreme Court. Its original jurisdicition is concurrent with other courts.

There is? So if only one court is given original jurisdiction, but any other court can hear the cases, what is the point of giving original jurisdiction? And how do these other courts get original jurisdiction, when there's nothing in the Constitution giving it to them?

If anything, the only way inferior courts should be able to hear any of these cases is if the SC gives it to them - they have original jurisdiction, but can then pass the cases down to circuit courts as they determine which court is should go to.

[veracious]

My replies to two questions above:

> 1. Congress can abolish the Supreme Court, ...

Congress cannot abolish SCOTUS. It is specifically written into existence by USConstitution.

> 2. Does SCOTUS have the right (or gave themselves the right) to delegate cases to the Circuit Courts?

No, SCOTUS or other part of USgovernment has no authority to change USConstitution, except to through the amendment process. It must be forced to operate lawfully.

Any of USgovernment may be changed by USAians, Congress, USgovernment, Democrats, socialists, communists. USgovernment may fundamentally changed by _no_ other means. We-The-People have been negligent; deceived to allow Congress authority to do _most_ of what has been doing for the past 80 years.

As part of executing USlaw, POTUS must fire & rehire advisers who adhere to USConstitution unfailingly. USConstitution, filtered through the Declaration of Independence, _is_ our lawful law.

Defend; fight for USConstitution, or perish.

[itsahoot]

Uh, no. We the Sovereign People created the Supreme Court. Per Article III, Congress can and should trim Scotus, but it cannot abolish it.

The Constitution is what established the Courts and the Constitution can be amended.

The Constitution can be amended by the establishment anytime they choose to do it and it requires not one vote from the people. In all practically it won't happen, but it certainly could and nothing but rebellion could stop it.

[Electric Graffiti]

“If America had a congress as institutionally proud as our Framers intended, federal district courts wouldn’t stop President Trump at nearly every turn.”

Agreed, but PDJT’s ‘advisors’ have done tremendous damage to Trump and the office of the presidency by advising him to cede his authority to these lawless courts instead of ignoring them.

Now it will be almost impossible to buck this trend without the entire corrupt govt going to defcon 1.

[The Pack Knight]

Svartalfiar: There is? So if only one court is given original jurisdiction, but any other court can hear the cases, what is the point of giving original jurisdiction? And how do these other courts get original jurisdiction, when there's nothing in the Constitution giving it to them?

Sometimes more than one court has original jurisdiction. The concept of concurrent original jurisdiction was well-known to the Founders who wrote the Constitution. The "inferior" federal courts, i.e. the district and circuit courts, get original jurisdiction from Congress, which is empowered by the Constitution to grant such jurisdiction. The state courts get their jurisdiction from their respective state constitutions and laws.

Veracious: This is a legal precedence or a scholar commentary? I’m able to read USConstitution; I’m able to read law; where does the law say what the above comment claims.
The Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant to powers granted to it by the Constitution say so, as I'll explain below. Court precedent is also the law in this country, and has been since the founding, whether you accept that or not.

The Constitution does not define the jurisdiction of all courts. It defines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the scope of the total judicial power of the United States. It does not define the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts (which is left to Congress), and it certainly does not define the jurisdiction of state courts, which also often have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts.

Article III Section 1: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." There is nothing in the Constitution giving any of these "inferior courts" jurisdiction or defining that jurisdiction, because those courts had not been created yet. The Constitution leaves that to Congress, which has the power to "ordain and establish" those courts.

This power necessarily includes Congress's power to grant jurisdiction to the inferior courts and define its scope, unless you think the Founders meant to allow Congress to create courts with no jurisdiction.

The very first Congress exercised its power to create inferior courts in 1789, 2 years after those words were written. The first Congress, whose number included many members of the very Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions that wrote the Constitution and made it law. Section 13 provides: "That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a State is a party, except between a State and its citizens, and except also between a State and citizens of other States, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction." (emphasis added).

So the First Congress recognized the distinction between original jurisdiction and exclusive original jurisdiction, and exercised its power to make the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over some state-party cases exclusive, and over other state-party cases concurrent with inferior courts. As you might notice, under the original Judiciary Act, suits by states against the federal government were within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

But no longer. Congress has, of course, amended the Judiciary Act many times over the last 230 years. The current Judiciary Act reads, pertinently, "The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: . . . (2) All controversies between the United States and a State." 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b). Congress has also provided, "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This is known as "federal question" jurisdiction and is the statute invoked by the states in the border wall suit.

mrsmith: Yes: it’s the law, not the Constitution. Though the Constitution allows it. Would be nice to change the law so the lower courts didn’t put out these injunctions willy-nilly. Have no idea how that could reasonably be done.

I couldn't agree more. It could be done by Congress amending the Judiciary Act to restrict district courts' jurisdiction to enter these nationwide injunctions against the government. They could vest that jurisdiction in one special district court, or limit the effect of such an injunction geographically to the district in which it was issued. Congress should have done that in 2017, as soon as the mischief from the "travel ban" case started. I don't know why they didn't, and I don't know why Trump wasn't screaming for them to do it.

Congress holds the keys to all of this. Congress could abolish all of the federal district and circuit courts if it wanted: it could just leave original jurisdiction over all of this stuff with the state courts, which what at least some of the Founders envisioned.

No one here has discovered a novel Constitutional argument--all these arguments have been tried before. The bottom line is that if you have a problem with this stuff--and I most certainly do--then you need to recognize that this is Congress's problem to fix.

[Jacquerie]

The lower federal courts boss is their creator, Congress. It is up to Congress to decide what to do with their rebellious children.

Of course, thanks to the 17th Amendment, Congress will never spank them.

Should PDJT flip off a lower court, plenty of rinos will be be more than happy to impeach and remove him from office, all in the name of the Constitution.

[Jacquerie]

<>No one here has discovered a novel Constitutional argument—all these arguments have been tried before. The bottom line is that if you have a problem with this stuff—and I most certainly do—then you need to recognize that this is Congress’s problem to fix.<>

See post #40 and link.

[The Pack Knight]

Indeed. The real Constitutional crisis has been Congress’s abdication of its position as the pre-eminent, or even a co-equal, branch of government over the last century. The Founders expected each branch to jealously guard its prerogatives, and failed to anticipate that Congress would largely cede its power to the executive.

[veracious]

> ...”except also between a State and citizens of other States, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction.”

Pretty clear to me that “not exclusive jurisdiction” is regarding the “latter case”, which is at the beginning of my excerpt. This is not related to my original claim about states VS federal, where SCOTUS has original and only jurisdiction. Congress cannot change this by passing a law. USConstitution changes are by amendment.

> This power necessarily includes Congress's power to grant jurisdiction to the inferior courts and define its scope, unless you think the Founders meant to allow Congress to create courts with no jurisdiction.

Clearly Congress was given power to define the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. However, this authority cannot mean inferior courts are as powerful as POTUS or SCOTUS. Congress cannot elevate one branch above another or create power which USConstitution does not provide for. The construct of the three branches of government are explicit in USConstitution. Congress properly created inferior courts but improperly empowered them in the area I described.

The very sovereignty of the states and their relationship to DC, the very charter which is USConstitution, would be at the whim of Congressional legislation, if it created courts allowed to decide such cases. USConstitution foresaw such fundamental structural issues were not privy to Congressional judicial construct, but to the coequal Judicial branch, so described, which is SCOTUS.

Surely yes, jurisdiction of state courts is up to each state.

I agree with much of the rest of “The Pack Knight” statements.

[itsahoot]

Should PDJT flip off a lower court, plenty of rinos will be be more than happy to impeach and remove him from office, all in the name of the Constitution.

Then bring it on, we can't continue this way much longer, we must either shite or get off the pot.

[Jacquerie]

Let’s clean things up. Let’s recognize the permanent state does as it wishes. Voting in congressional elections is fast approaching irrelevancy.

Article V COS.

[itsahoot]

Voting in congressional elections is fast approaching irrelevancy.

Pretty much. As an aside I think the Convention of the States is an exercise in futility. Passing new laws saying they have to obey old laws, that they don't obey now, doesn't make much sense to me.

[central_va]

A CoS to repeal the 16th ad 17th amendments would be great.

[Jacquerie]

If that is true, then a COS can do no harm.

The 17th Amendment is obeyed. So will its repeal.

[itsahoot]

The 17th Amendment is obeyed. So will its repeal.

You have a dozen or so States in a state of rebellion and yet the Attorney General can find nothing to charge them with. If they are not charged then they have done nothing wrong I guess.

The Constitution is powerless to protect itself if we have immoral political leaders.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other." October 11, 1798 John Adams

We are now a population of "Any Others."

[Jacquerie]

While you’re at it, don’t forget Jefferson’s blood of patriots.

[itsahoot]

While you’re at it, don’t forget Jefferson’s blood of patriots.

Wouldn't dream of it.