The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 1, 2010, 05:27 PM   #1
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 330
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
pnac is offline  
Old August 1, 2010, 05:48 PM   #2
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
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)."
gc70 is offline  
Old August 1, 2010, 05:55 PM   #3
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
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.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old August 1, 2010, 06:05 PM   #4
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 330
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
pnac is offline  
Old August 2, 2010, 12:26 AM   #5
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
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.
csmsss is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.06743 seconds with 7 queries