Jurisdiction

pnac · August 1, 2010, 05:27 PM

In light of U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's injunction of parts of AZ SB1070,how does this decision agree with Art.3, Sec.2 of the US Constitution? It looks like only the SC has jurisdiction over State law.

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 2

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.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

gc70 · August 1, 2010, 05:48 PM

Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation (Congressional Research Service, page #160)

"By the Judiciary Act of 1789, and subsequent amendments thereof, Congress has vested in the federal district courts jurisdiction to hear all suits of a civil nature at law or in equity brought by the United States as party plaintiff." 883

883 "But suits by the United States against a State may be brought in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(2), but may as well be brought in the district court. Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 97 (1946)."

vranasaurus · August 1, 2010, 05:55 PM

Article 2 section 8 says the congress shall have power to convene tribunals inferior to the supreme court and the congress gave the district courts concurrent original jurisdiction with the supreme court and the supreme court has not said this is unconsitutional and they won't unless they want to make their workload umanageable.

28 USC 1251 and 28 USC 1331.

pnac · August 1, 2010, 06:05 PM

Thanks, vranasaurus and gc70, I appreciate your input.

csmsss · August 2, 2010, 12:26 AM

Under what method of constitutional interpretation does the Congress, by means of a signed Act alone, obtain the authority to alter the extremely specific original language of the Constitution? All Congressional acts not conforming to established procedures of Constitutional amendment are by definition subordinate and inferior to the Constitution itself. I think this is still a very valid, unanswered question.

August 1, 2010, 06:05 PM	#4
pnac Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2008 Posts: 550	Thanks, vranasaurus and gc70, I appreciate your input. __________________ In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons

August 1, 2010, 05:27 PM	#1
pnac Senior Member Join Date: September 7, 2008 Posts: 550	Jurisdiction In light of U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's injunction of parts of AZ SB1070,how does this decision agree with Art.3, Sec.2 of the US Constitution? It looks like only the SC has jurisdiction over State law. U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 2 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. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. __________________ In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons

August 1, 2010, 05:48 PM	#2
gc70 Senior Member Join Date: May 24, 2005 Location: North Carolina Posts: 2,903	Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation (Congressional Research Service, page #160) "By the Judiciary Act of 1789, and subsequent amendments thereof, Congress has vested in the federal district courts jurisdiction to hear all suits of a civil nature at law or in equity brought by the United States as party plaintiff." 883 883 "But suits by the United States against a State may be brought in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(2), but may as well be brought in the district court. Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 97 (1946)."

August 1, 2010, 05:55 PM	#3
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	Article 2 section 8 says the congress shall have power to convene tribunals inferior to the supreme court and the congress gave the district courts concurrent original jurisdiction with the supreme court and the supreme court has not said this is unconsitutional and they won't unless they want to make their workload umanageable. 28 USC 1251 and 28 USC 1331.

August 2, 2010, 12:26 AM	#5
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	Under what method of constitutional interpretation does the Congress, by means of a signed Act alone, obtain the authority to alter the extremely specific original language of the Constitution? All Congressional acts not conforming to established procedures of Constitutional amendment are by definition subordinate and inferior to the Constitution itself. I think this is still a very valid, unanswered question.