Somebody actually went and looked up the provisions contained in that old, obsolete document, written in English-only by dead white male slaveholders, you know, the one that they call the Constitution? How quaint.
Somehow I think there is more to the story. There are 1,000s of court actions where the State is a party. Break a State law and the court docket reads "State of XXXX Vs ZZZ. Does anyone think the SCOTUS should have original jurisdiction whenever someone breaks a State law? There are many many other examples of States being a party to a court action where it is nonsensical to believe the SCOTUS should hold original jurisdiction. This is an absurd contention - and that's coming from a Conservative Independent Tea Party supporter.
This "astute attorney" apparently fails to understand that constitutional law consists of more than what's written in the Constitution alone. It also draws on relevant acts of Congress and centuries of Supreme Court precedents. And in this case, such supplementary law clearly indicates that the author is incorrect.
From legal resource law.onecle.com:
"Although Chief Justice Marshall apparently assumed the Court had exclusive jurisdiction of cases within its original jurisdiction, Congress from 1789 on gave the inferior federal courts concurrent jurisdiction in some classes of such cases. Sustained in the early years on circuit, this concurrent jurisdiction was finally approved by the Court itself."
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1251.html
This is affirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions cited in my first link. So both Congress and the Supreme Court itself have established that federal courts share jurisdiction with the Supreme Court on cases such as United States v. Arizona.
It's funny that I, a layman, was able to determine this after only five minutes of Googling, while this "astute attorney" neither knew this to begin with nor bothered to check her facts before publishing this drivel. Perhaps because she's less interested in the truth of the matter than in handing the right-wing yet another inaccurate but authoritative-sounding bit of disinformation to use in their campaign against the Obama administration.
This "astute attorney" apparently fails to understand that constitutional law consists of more than what's written in the Constitution alone. It also draws on relevant acts of Congress and centuries of Supreme Court precedents. And in this case, such supplementary law clearly indicates that the author is incorrect.
From legal resource law.onecle.com:
"Although Chief Justice Marshall apparently assumed the Court had exclusive jurisdiction of cases within its original jurisdiction, Congress from 1789 on gave the inferior federal courts concurrent jurisdiction in some classes of such cases. Sustained in the early years on circuit, this concurrent jurisdiction was finally approved by the Court itself."
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1251.html
This is affirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions cited in my first link. So both Congress and the Supreme Court itself have established that federal courts share jurisdiction with the Supreme Court on cases such as United States v. Arizona.
It's funny that I, a layman, was able to determine this after only five minutes of Googling, while this "astute attorney" neither knew this to begin with nor bothered to check her facts before publishing this drivel. Perhaps because she's less interested in the truth of the matter than in handing the right-wing yet another inaccurate but authoritative-sounding bit of disinformation to use in their campaign against the Obama administration.
This "astute attorney" apparently fails to understand that constitutional law consists of more than what's written in the Constitution alone. It also draws on relevant acts of Congress and centuries of Supreme Court precedents. And in this case, such supplementary law clearly indicates that the author is incorrect.
For starters, the landmark Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by the very first session of Congress -- which included members such as Rep. James Madison, Sen. James Monroe, and Vice President John Adams. § 13 of the Act established that federal district courts shared concurrent jurisdiction over some cases in which the Constitution declared the Supreme Court to have original jurisdiction.
This decision was affirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions, which are cited by footnote 1090 in this link:
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1251.html
So, in the act of establishing the judicial system, the very first Congress granted federal district courts concurrent jurisdiction over some of SCOTUS's original jurisdiction, which the law clearly indicates includes cases such as United States v. Arizona. This decision was upheld multiple times by the Supreme Court and currently set down in the U.S. Code.
It's funny that I, a layman, was able to determine this after only a few minutes of Googling, while this "astute attorney" neither knew this to begin with nor bothered to check the facts before publishing this drivel. Perhaps because they're less interested in the truth of the matter than in handing the right-wing yet another inaccurate but authoritative-sounding bit of disinformation to use in their campaign against the Obama administration.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bille3Jul 31, 2010Buried
One thing congress and TOH recognize is just how apathetic the public is about having their basic rights and protections wiped away.
bille3Jul 31, 2010Buried
No surprise here.
14justiceJul 31, 2010Buried
Somebody actually went and looked up the provisions contained in that old, obsolete document, written in English-only by dead white male slaveholders, you know, the one that they call the Constitution? How quaint.
mnocketJul 31, 2010Buried
Somehow I think there is more to the story. There are 1,000s of court actions where the State is a party. Break a State law and the court docket reads "State of XXXX Vs ZZZ. Does anyone think the SCOTUS should have original jurisdiction whenever someone breaks a State law? There are many many other examples of States being a party to a court action where it is nonsensical to believe the SCOTUS should hold original jurisdiction. This is an absurd contention - and that's coming from a Conservative Independent Tea Party supporter.
Jordan117Aug 1, 2010Buried
This "astute attorney" apparently fails to understand that constitutional law consists of more than what's written in the Constitution alone. It also draws on relevant acts of Congress and centuries of Supreme Court precedents. And in this case, such supplementary law clearly indicates that the author is incorrect.
From legal resource law.onecle.com:
"Although Chief Justice Marshall apparently assumed the Court had exclusive jurisdiction of cases within its original jurisdiction, Congress from 1789 on gave the inferior federal courts concurrent jurisdiction in some classes of such cases. Sustained in the early years on circuit, this concurrent jurisdiction was finally approved by the Court itself."
Source:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/32-original-jurisdiction.html
The relevant part of the US Code is 28 U.S.C. § 1251 (b) (2), which clearly states:
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
Source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1251.html
This is affirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions cited in my first link. So both Congress and the Supreme Court itself have established that federal courts share jurisdiction with the Supreme Court on cases such as United States v. Arizona.
It's funny that I, a layman, was able to determine this after only five minutes of Googling, while this "astute attorney" neither knew this to begin with nor bothered to check her facts before publishing this drivel. Perhaps because she's less interested in the truth of the matter than in handing the right-wing yet another inaccurate but authoritative-sounding bit of disinformation to use in their campaign against the Obama administration.
Jordan117Aug 1, 2010Buried
This "astute attorney" apparently fails to understand that constitutional law consists of more than what's written in the Constitution alone. It also draws on relevant acts of Congress and centuries of Supreme Court precedents. And in this case, such supplementary law clearly indicates that the author is incorrect.
From legal resource law.onecle.com:
"Although Chief Justice Marshall apparently assumed the Court had exclusive jurisdiction of cases within its original jurisdiction, Congress from 1789 on gave the inferior federal courts concurrent jurisdiction in some classes of such cases. Sustained in the early years on circuit, this concurrent jurisdiction was finally approved by the Court itself."
Source:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/32-original-jurisdiction.html
The relevant part of the US Code is 28 U.S.C. § 1251 (b) (2), which clearly states:
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
Source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1251.html
This is affirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions cited in my first link. So both Congress and the Supreme Court itself have established that federal courts share jurisdiction with the Supreme Court on cases such as United States v. Arizona.
It's funny that I, a layman, was able to determine this after only five minutes of Googling, while this "astute attorney" neither knew this to begin with nor bothered to check her facts before publishing this drivel. Perhaps because she's less interested in the truth of the matter than in handing the right-wing yet another inaccurate but authoritative-sounding bit of disinformation to use in their campaign against the Obama administration.
ascadianAug 3, 2010Buried
Very interesting article to say the least
Jordan117Aug 1, 2010Buried
This "astute attorney" apparently fails to understand that constitutional law consists of more than what's written in the Constitution alone. It also draws on relevant acts of Congress and centuries of Supreme Court precedents. And in this case, such supplementary law clearly indicates that the author is incorrect.
For starters, the landmark Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by the very first session of Congress -- which included members such as Rep. James Madison, Sen. James Monroe, and Vice President John Adams. § 13 of the Act established that federal district courts shared concurrent jurisdiction over some cases in which the Constitution declared the Supreme Court to have original jurisdiction.
This decision was affirmed by multiple Supreme Court decisions, which are cited by footnote 1090 in this link:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/32-original-jurisdiction.html
As with all American law, this statute has been amended and expounded upon as the US judicial system has evolved. The current incarnation of the law is 28 U.S.C. § 1251 (b) (2), which states:
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
Source:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1251.html
So, in the act of establishing the judicial system, the very first Congress granted federal district courts concurrent jurisdiction over some of SCOTUS's original jurisdiction, which the law clearly indicates includes cases such as United States v. Arizona. This decision was upheld multiple times by the Supreme Court and currently set down in the U.S. Code.
It's funny that I, a layman, was able to determine this after only a few minutes of Googling, while this "astute attorney" neither knew this to begin with nor bothered to check the facts before publishing this drivel. Perhaps because they're less interested in the truth of the matter than in handing the right-wing yet another inaccurate but authoritative-sounding bit of disinformation to use in their campaign against the Obama administration.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.