Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tarheel25

This is where we differ, you are willing to cede authority to an inferior court on State laws that might have federal implications. I am Not, My version of the Constitution is clear in this respect. As long as The State is a party, they have NO Jurisdiction. And until someone forces the issue the US Constitution is useless. I know the court has set this up this way, and I am sure they did it for good reason, they don’t want to be bothered with pesky State’s that still demand the Constitution be followed.

As long as The States plays by their rules, there is no chance of Liberty.


48 posted on 12/23/2014 1:36:46 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: eyeamok

The Supreme Court itself has made rulings through the years that the lower federal courts can hear cases involving states as parties. I have to agree with you that it is not Constitutionally sound. In all reality, a Constitutional amendment probably should be made to clarify this issue. I am a strict literal Constitutional advocate and the truth is that the setup of the judiciary and subsequent history of the judiciary has sort of gone off course from what the framers penned.


49 posted on 12/23/2014 2:31:58 PM PST by Tarheel25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson