On a thread in The Post & Email site, a poster named Mick believed that the AZ matter allowed jurisdiction by Federal District courts and posted as follows:
=============
"Supreme Court does not have exclusive Original jurisdiction USC28 1251(b):
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 81 > § 1251 Prev | Next § 1251. Original jurisdiction
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States. (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: (1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties; (2) All controversies between the United States and a State; (3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
USC28 1331:
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1331 Prev | Next § 1331. Federal question
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
=======================
Being unwilling to let that stamd as though it might be correct, I responded:
Nice try Mick – but no!!
The law you cite is merely one of the attempted end runs around the Constitution in trying to make it useless. Article III of the Constitution states:
“… The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made , or which shall be made, under their authority … to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party …” and further goes on to state:
“… In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appelate Jurisdiction …”.
It is not within the purview of Congress to override or abrogate the words and clear meaning of the Constitution (no matter how hard and how often they try – as in the instance you cite). Absent a Constitutional Amendment, the statute you cite is clearly unconstitutional in attempting to give jurisdiction (and thereby political power) to one of the inferior courts which merely constitutes an attemp to make a Congressional grab of unauthorized (and unconstitutional) political power.
I certainly hope that AZ takes the matter to SCOTUS on this basis as the congregational statute will most likely be struck down unless SCOTUS (for some reason) decides to participate in its own destruction by pulling its own teeth thereby allowing Congressional amendment of the Constitution at their whim – as you present.
You seem to miss the whole idea of the Constitution as a contract between the three branches of the government and the people of the country. It’s time that that is rectified.
==========================
As I have said before I think it's truly time for "Raising Arizona" and hope the States takes it to SCOTUS for original jurisdiction where it should be under the Constitution.
On a thread in The Post & Email site, a poster named Mick believed that the AZ matter allowed jurisdiction by Federal District courts and posted as follows:
ReplyDelete=============
"Supreme Court does not have exclusive Original jurisdiction
USC28 1251(b):
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 81 > § 1251
Prev | Next
§ 1251. Original jurisdiction
(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
USC28 1331:
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1331
Prev | Next
§ 1331. Federal question
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
=======================
Being unwilling to let that stamd as though it might be correct, I responded:
Nice try Mick – but no!!
The law you cite is merely one of the attempted end runs around the Constitution in trying to make it useless. Article III of the Constitution states:
“… The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made , or which shall be made, under their authority … to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party …” and further goes on to state:
“… In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Counsuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appelate Jurisdiction …”.
It is not within the purview of Congress to override or abrogate the words and clear meaning of the Constitution (no matter how hard and how often they try – as in the instance you cite). Absent a Constitutional Amendment, the statute you cite is clearly unconstitutional in attempting to give jurisdiction (and thereby political power) to one of the inferior courts which merely constitutes an attemp to make a Congressional grab of unauthorized (and unconstitutional) political power.
I certainly hope that AZ takes the matter to SCOTUS on this basis as the congregational statute will most likely be struck down unless SCOTUS (for some reason) decides to participate in its own destruction by pulling its own teeth thereby allowing Congressional amendment of the Constitution at their whim – as you present.
You seem to miss the whole idea of the Constitution as a contract between the three branches of the government and the people of the country. It’s time that that is rectified.
==========================
As I have said before I think it's truly time for "Raising Arizona" and hope the States takes it to SCOTUS for original jurisdiction where it should be under the Constitution.