Replies

If that were not crackpot enough, the post implies there is such a thing as an Article IV judge, which there is not (there are only Article I and Article III federal judges) and that Article III judges do not have jurisdiction over claims made under Article IV of the constitution, which in fact they do and have exercised constantly throughout the history of the country.

Since we're talking about him, might as well ping D Joyce to the conversation.

Go back and re-read Article III Section 2. Nowhere in that statement is there any reference to jurisdiction over citizens within a state. Such citizens are accorded jurisdiction as listed in Article IV Section 2. The Constitution recognizes that each state is a self regulating agency, and governed and supported by it's citizenry. The only times that the Federal Courts should become involved is where the jurisdiction crosses state lines, or involves a constitutional restriction.

Seems to me that the difference between us is that you see the constitution the way they teach it in the Government Indoctrination Centers; as providing the government with permissions to act. I, and most here, see it as restrictions against government action. My government glass is half full, and I want to drain it some more. Your government glass is half full, and you want it filled up. Well, I am proud to say I side with the boatloads of terrorists that fought against my Royalist brethren, and give thanks I was able to join them, albeit a few years later.

In fact the language of Article III section 2 does give jurisdiction to the federal courts over citizens within a state, and the federal courts have exercised that jurisdiction since the beginning of our republic. The key phrase is that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States . . ." Any citizen of any state could and did sue, be sued, or be prosecuted if the case involved a question of federal law or the federal constitution. Additionally, by the way, there is another specific grant of jurisdiction "between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states."

With all due respect, I think the difference between us is that I am reading the constitution as it actually reads and was historically intended by the founding fathers to mean while you are instead pulling words and phrases of the constitution out of context and giving them meanings and interpretations which they have never had.