Posted on 02/04/2017 9:32:34 PM PST by veracious
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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2. 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 all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
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. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
(Excerpt) Read more at en.wikisource.org ...
Wasn't this case Washington State VS US (executive) government. If so, can any lawyers, including DOJ, read and follow US law?
I’ll wait for the ‘translation’ into everyday English.
You figured it out. But how to tell Trump?
The left are anglophobic, heterophobic and deploraphobic.
The left are anglophobic, heterophobic and deploraphobic.
In a nutshell!
It seems like SCOTUS may have _original_ jurisdiction over the recent, Federal judge ruling, stopping Trump's immigration change. Wasn't this case Washington State VS US (executive) government. If so, can any lawyers, including DOJ, read and follow US law?
The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a higher court has the power to review a lower court's decision.
I think what he's saying is the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and therefore the court which made the ruling has no jurisdiction. I'm not a lawyer and haven't looked at this issue; that's just my interpretation of the point he was making.
Thanks.
It would seem so.
But it seems to me, that the DOJ should first argue the state has no standing ? maybe Arizona v. United States ?
The jurisdiction of federal district courts on matter of the Constitutionality of the President’s actions can be revoked by Congress. And, should be.
This was granted to the courts by congress.
anton wrote, “This was granted to the courts by congress.”
So...at some point, the US Congress effectively amended the Constitution on its own?
No, the constitution mentions lower courts.
Article III of the Constitution. 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.
The OP’s point was that Congress had no constitutional authority to do this. While Article III does mention lower courts, it appears that the only cases they are allowed to hear are:
cases involving admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,
cases involving the U.S. as a party (other than a state as the other party)
citizens of different states
citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states
citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.
Cases involving states must be heard through original jurisdiction by SCOTUS. I’m sure that would slow down the docket considerably.
In actuality though the SCOTUS almost never hears a case through original jurisdiction. If they do, they typically appoint a “special master” who makes a decision then the case is treated like any other appellate case.
What’s most dangerous about this whole kerfuffle is that it shows that the Executive branch can be stymied in every action it takes that liberal judges in the Judicial branch do not agree with. The Executive branch, in concert with the Legislative branch, needs to rein in the Judicial branch, post haste, or nothing worthwhile will get done. The sooner the Judicial branch is put in its place the better off we’ll be. One immediate solution is to ignore lawless, unconstitutional rulings of the toothless Judicial branch in matters where the Executive and Legislative branches are in agreement.
Trump and DOJ, please read USConstitution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do NOT continue to allow the past to define your future. Follow the supreme law of USA and force the courts to do that. Please?
That needs to change. They need to follow USConstitution.
“Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.”
— Aaron Burr
“Law is merely the expression of the will of the strongest for the time being.”
— Brooks Adams
The Democrats didn’t have a problem when Obama was pulling EOs out of his ***, e.g. DACA, that were in direct violation of US immigration law.
The `rats love to dump stuff like this on Friday evenings. They rammed through Obamacare late Christmas Eve, when the country was thinking happy thoughts.
Keep in mind that we’re just two weeks in, and Trump doesn’t have his cabinet filled due to ... `rat obstructionists.
This is their last obstructionist gasp, after failing at recounts, challenging and threatening electors, using their MSM as a club: here, using their trusty judges, as they did in striking down state laws and referendums that frustrated the homosexualists.
Mozlims and illegals are just another client group of the Democats. Trump and Co. are going to destroy them. Good things should start happening next week.
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.