Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arizona ruling unconstitutonal.

sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 3:41:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There is currently no sitting Supreme Court Judge capable of interpreting the Constitution. The Federal Supreme Court should have intervened in the Arizona immigration law trial. This is as basic as it gets, Constitution 101.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

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.

"Original" jurisdiction means the power to conduct the "trial" of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court).

The Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.

See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 3:42:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 3:41:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is currently no sitting Supreme Court Judge capable of interpreting the Constitution. The Federal Supreme Court should have intervened in the Arizona immigration law trial. This is as basic as it gets, Constitution 101.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

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.

"Original" jurisdiction means the power to conduct the "trial" of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court).

The Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.

See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

http://antzinpantz.com...
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 6:53:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 3:42:39 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2010 3:41:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is currently no sitting Supreme Court Judge capable of interpreting the Constitution. The Federal Supreme Court should have intervened in the Arizona immigration law trial. This is as basic as it gets, Constitution 101.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

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.

"Original" jurisdiction means the power to conduct the "trial" of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court).

The Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.

See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

http://antzinpantz.com...

hmmmm Not a single comment yet. I guess when the truth is exposed there's nothing more to say. So much for Obama's knowledge of the Constitution and the entire sitting Federal Supreme Court. This country can not and will not survive this kind of incompetence leading our country. But I know it isn't incompetence, it is political correctness and the sheer corruption of our govt to cater to the politically correct line rather than doing what is right and following the law.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 6:55:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 6:53:02 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2010 3:42:39 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/13/2010 3:41:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
There is currently no sitting Supreme Court Judge capable of interpreting the Constitution. The Federal Supreme Court should have intervened in the Arizona immigration law trial. This is as basic as it gets, Constitution 101.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

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.

"Original" jurisdiction means the power to conduct the "trial" of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court).

The Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants.

See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

http://antzinpantz.com...

hmmmm Not a single comment yet. I guess when the truth is exposed there's nothing more to say. So much for Obama's knowledge of the Constitution and the entire sitting Federal Supreme Court. This country can not and will not survive this kind of incompetence leading our country. But I know it isn't incompetence, it is political correctness and the sheer corruption of our govt to cater to the politically correct line rather than doing what is right and following the law.

This must be what "secular humanism ethics" is all about.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:06:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 3:41:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

There is legal precedent that stands contrary to this point.

http://supreme.justia.com...

CASE V. BOWLES, 327 U. S. 92 (1946)

" But it is well settled that despite Article 3, Congress can give the district courts jurisdiction to try controversies between a state and the United States. "

Additionally, we can look to --

United States Code: Title 28, 1251.

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.


http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Anything else?
President of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:30:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 7:06:54 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/13/2010 3:41:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

There is legal precedent that stands contrary to this point.

http://supreme.justia.com...

CASE V. BOWLES, 327 U. S. 92 (1946)

" But it is well settled that despite Article 3, Congress can give the district courts jurisdiction to try controversies between a state and the United States. "

Additionally, we can look to --

United States Code: Title 28, 1251.

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.


http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Anything else?

Ya. How is that case even remotely related in it's content to the AZ case? There are several other cases also. What is the precedent with regard to immigration law. And on what bases under the case you have provided makes the AZ trial a district court matter.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:36:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 9:30:52 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 7:06:54 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/13/2010 3:41:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

There is legal precedent that stands contrary to this point.

http://supreme.justia.com...

CASE V. BOWLES, 327 U. S. 92 (1946)

" But it is well settled that despite Article 3, Congress can give the district courts jurisdiction to try controversies between a state and the United States. "

Additionally, we can look to --

United States Code: Title 28, 1251.

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.


http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Anything else?

Ya. How is that case even remotely related in it's content to the AZ case? There are several other cases also. What is the precedent with regard to immigration law. And on what bases under the case you have provided makes the AZ trial a district court matter.

"The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party."
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 7:25:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 9:36:15 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 9:30:52 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 7:06:54 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/13/2010 3:41:07 PM, sadolite wrote:
See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

There is legal precedent that stands contrary to this point.

http://supreme.justia.com...

CASE V. BOWLES, 327 U. S. 92 (1946)

" But it is well settled that despite Article 3, Congress can give the district courts jurisdiction to try controversies between a state and the United States. "

Additionally, we can look to --

United States Code: Title 28, 1251.

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.


http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Anything else?

Ya. How is that case even remotely related in it's content to the AZ case? There are several other cases also. What is the precedent with regard to immigration law. And on what bases under the case you have provided makes the AZ trial a district court matter.

"The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party."

I think the correct and right question to ask in this case is this. Why should the AZ case "NOT" be tried before the Federal Supreme Court as article three clearly states that it should be? Why would one search for excuses to not do what is clearly stated. The only reason I can think of is to subvert the Constitution as it is written.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 8:58:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As one of the commenters on one of the links noted, original is not exclusive. In other words, it's unconstitutional to say "No. Keep your hands off supreme court, no one appealed to you." But original jurisdiction is phrased as a power, not an obligation (This was in YOUR definition sado), which means it is perfectly constitutional for the supreme court to yawn and leave the case alone if that is what it wants to do-- the power to do A does not imply the lack of power to do non-A.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 8:59:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 8:36:37 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
sadolite when you expose the truth for us, there's really nothing more for us to say...

Hmmm, sarcasm?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:08:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
not positive, but it seems that the wording "original but not exclusive jurisdiction" implies that while the supreme court gets the first crack at the case, as it were, they can pass it off on a lesser court if they so choose. not sure whats unconstitutional about it....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:16:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's kinda like the second amendment. You have the power to spend your money on a gun.

this doesn't mean you have to be prosecuted for failure to spend money on a gun.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:20:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 8:58:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As one of the commenters on one of the links noted, original is not exclusive. In other words, it's unconstitutional to say "No. Keep your hands off supreme court, no one appealed to you." But original jurisdiction is phrased as a power, not an obligation (This was in YOUR definition sado), which means it is perfectly constitutional for the supreme court to yawn and leave the case alone if that is what it wants to do-- the power to do A does not imply the lack of power to do non-A.

I looked up about five or six cases on this subject and all without exception involved a third party. IE: someone or or some entity who stood to gain or lose. Land use interstate commerce issues. I can see the supreme court not wanting to deal with such things.
The AZ case is exclusive there is no third party. This is about direct dereliction of duty on the part of the federal gov't. This is not one state verses another or a state vs some entity. This is about the federal gov't and federal law that is already written and settled.
The Federal Govt is in violation of not enforcing it's own already written laws. How can a state court rule that a federal law has been broken or unconstitutional when the law it is ruling to be unconstitutional mirrors already written "constitutional" federal law?
This is clearly a Federal Supreme Court issue if there were ever one. But then again, who gives a flying F@ck what the Constitution says. It's an old out dated pile of sh#t that isn't even worth the paper it's written on anymore. All legislation written today is meant to evade the constitution.

"It's a document of negative liberties" Barak Obama Constitutional scholar and professor.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:24:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 9:20:40 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 8:58:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
As one of the commenters on one of the links noted, original is not exclusive. In other words, it's unconstitutional to say "No. Keep your hands off supreme court, no one appealed to you." But original jurisdiction is phrased as a power, not an obligation (This was in YOUR definition sado), which means it is perfectly constitutional for the supreme court to yawn and leave the case alone if that is what it wants to do-- the power to do A does not imply the lack of power to do non-A.

I looked up about five or six cases on this subject and all without exception involved a third party. IE: someone or or some entity who stood to gain or lose. Land use interstate commerce issues. I can see the supreme court not wanting to deal with such things.
The AZ case is exclusive there is no third party. This is about direct dereliction of duty on the part of the federal gov't. This is not one state verses another or a state vs some entity. This is about the federal gov't and federal law that is already written and settled.
The Federal Govt is in violation of not enforcing it's own already written laws. How can a state court rule that a federal law has been broken or unconstitutional when the law it is ruling to be unconstitutional mirrors already written "constitutional" federal law?
This is clearly a Federal Supreme Court issue if there were ever one. But then again, who gives a flying F@ck what the Constitution says. It's an old out dated pile of sh#t that isn't even worth the paper it's written on anymore. All legislation written today is meant to evade the constitution.


"It's a document of negative liberties" Barak Obama Constitutional scholar and professor.

sounds like you're pissed off that the supreme court decided they didn't want the case. fine. that still doesn't make it unconstitutional. theres no law that says the supreme court MUST accept all cases falling under the listed criteria.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:32:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The AZ case is exclusive there is no third party.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise, unless you note the exclusiveness in the Constitution, which I cannae find.

This is about direct dereliction of duty
Says jurisdiction. That's a power, not a duty, sorry.

The Federal Govt is in violation of not enforcing it's own already written laws. How can a state court rule that a federal law has been broken or unconstitutional when the law it is ruling to be unconstitutional mirrors already written "constitutional" federal law?
Two parties trying to enforce even the same law can run into strategic contradictions.

"It's a document of negative liberties"
Rare words of wisdom from Obama, that he rarely follows. And opposed to your point in case you were wondering.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 9:59:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
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. (side note- In the United States, courts having original jurisdiction are referred to as trial courts. In certain types of cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction concurrently with lower courts.
, The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time as opposed to appellate jurisdiction when a court has the power to review a lower court's decision.
)
In all the other cases before mentioned (above in bold, Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts.), 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.

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2010 10:06:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It violates the federal Supremacy Clause by attempting to bypass federal immigration law

It violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause rights of racial and national origin minorities by subjecting them to stops, detentions, and arrests based on their race or origin

It violates the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech by exposing speakers to scrutiny based on their language or accent

It violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures because it allows for warrantless searches in absence of probable cause

It violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by being impermissibly vague;
and infringes on constitutional provisions that protect the right to travel without being stopped, questioned, or detained.

The Tenth Amendment-
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is the reason they can do it.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 6:57:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 9:59:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
In other words, Your wrong.

OK, now that I have heard every excuse for this case "not" to be heard before the federal Supreme court. Maybe someone can enlighten me and give me excuses "For" it to be held before the Federal Supreme Court. If there are reasons not to there must be reasons for it to be mandatory. Otherwise what is the point and meaning of "Original Jurisdiction" if it can be ignored in every case.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 7:05:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 6:57:52 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 9:59:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
In other words, Your wrong.

OK, now that I have heard every excuse for this case "not" to be heard before the federal Supreme court. Maybe someone can enlighten me and give me excuses "For" it to be held before the Federal Supreme Court. If there are reasons not to there must be reasons for it to be mandatory. Otherwise what is the point and meaning of "Original Jurisdiction" if it can be ignored in every case.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 7:07:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 7:05:35 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2010 6:57:52 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 9:59:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
In other words, Your wrong.

OK, now that I have heard every excuse for this case "not" to be heard before the federal Supreme court. Maybe someone can enlighten me and give me excuses "For" it to be held before the Federal Supreme Court. If there are reasons not to there must be reasons for it to be mandatory. Otherwise what is the point and meaning of "Original Jurisdiction" if it can be ignored in every case.

Double post. I committed a harelip maneuver!!
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 7:49:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 6:57:52 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 9:59:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
In other words, Your wrong.

OK, now that I have heard every excuse for this case "not" to be heard before the federal Supreme court. Maybe someone can enlighten me and give me excuses "For" it to be held before the Federal Supreme Court. If there are reasons not to there must be reasons for it to be mandatory. Otherwise what is the point and meaning of "Original Jurisdiction" if it can be ignored in every case.

The point and meaning is that the Supreme Court is the only party with the power to decide to ignore it. It's intended to make the Supreme Court more Supreme, not make it have a tougher workload.

The only excuse for it to be held before the Supreme Court-- is if the Supreme Court decides it wants to hear the case (because it thinks another court will do it wrong). If it doesn't think that, there's no point.

Your question is more or less the same as "What's the point of the 2nd amendment if we don't force people to buy guns?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 7:51:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 7:05:35 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2010 6:57:52 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 9:59:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
In other words, Your wrong.

OK, now that I have heard every excuse for this case "not" to be heard before the federal Supreme court. Maybe someone can enlighten me and give me excuses "For" it to be held before the Federal Supreme Court. If there are reasons not to there must be reasons for it to be mandatory. Otherwise what is the point and meaning of "Original Jurisdiction" if it can be ignored in every case.

So in reality "Original Jurisdiction" really means "First Right of Refusal" There is no mandatory or legal reason for the Supreme court to hear any case under Article 3. I wounder why they even bothered to write it if it has no real meaning when it comes to which cases are required to be heard before the Supreme court and no other court. In essence the supreme court can refuse to hear any case Under the terms of article 3 based solely on something as arbitrary as "We don't want to be bothered with it" or "Go plea your case to someone who gives a sh@t"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:01:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 6:57:52 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 9:59:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
In other words, Your wrong.

OK, now that I have heard every excuse for this case "not" to be heard before the federal Supreme court. Maybe someone can enlighten me and give me excuses "For" it to be held before the Federal Supreme Court. If there are reasons not to there must be reasons for it to be mandatory. Otherwise what is the point and meaning of "Original Jurisdiction" if it can be ignored in every case.

I did. I study this everyday. The supreme court is justified.
Read what I wrote.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:03:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 7:49:40 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

The only excuse for it to be held before the Supreme Court-- is if the Supreme Court decides it wants to hear the case (because it thinks another court will do it wrong). If it doesn't think that, there's no point.


I agree with this, and it is true.
It has the right to do this.

Your question is more or less the same as "What's the point of the 2nd amendment if we don't force people to buy guns?"
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:05:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 7:51:55 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2010 7:05:35 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/15/2010 6:57:52 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/14/2010 9:59:21 PM, comoncents wrote:
In other words, Your wrong.

OK, now that I have heard every excuse for this case "not" to be heard before the federal Supreme court. Maybe someone can enlighten me and give me excuses "For" it to be held before the Federal Supreme Court. If there are reasons not to there must be reasons for it to be mandatory. Otherwise what is the point and meaning of "Original Jurisdiction" if it can be ignored in every case.

So in reality "Original Jurisdiction" really means "First Right of Refusal" There is no mandatory or legal reason for the Supreme court to hear any case under Article 3.

But there is a right for them to be able hear it and rule on it.

I wounder why they even bothered to write it if it has no real meaning when it comes to which cases are required to be heard before the Supreme court and no other court. In essence the supreme court can refuse to hear any case Under the terms of article 3 based solely on something as arbitrary as "We don't want to be bothered with it" or "Go plea your case to someone who gives a sh@t"

Your getting it now.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:10:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Your argument should not be, "Arizona ruling unconstitutional.", it should be whether they should get involved or not.

(You have a better case, but you are still going to lose as facts and evidence back your opposition. )

The only way for states to not answer to the supreme court is to make things that as currently unconstitutional, constitutional by amending it; then the supreme court will not intervene.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:16:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 9:30:52 AM, sadolite wrote:
Ya. How is that case even remotely related in it's content to the AZ case?

Are you illiterate my friend?

CASE V. BOWLES, 327 U. S. 92 (1946)

" But it is well settled that despite Article 3, Congress can give the district courts jurisdiction to try controversies between a state and the United States. "

Arizona is the defendant in the case, by your own admission. If the law states that CONGRESS CAN GIVE LOWER COURTS JURISDICTION TO TRY A CASE BETWEEN A STATE AND THE U.S., then this is absolutely relevant! Your whole point was to prove that the law makers were not abiding by the law, when in fact, they were... and you were just misinformed.

And on what bases under the case you have provided makes the AZ trial a district court matter.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.


All I have to do is repeat the laws to show how you're wrong and answer your questions.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 8:17:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/14/2010 9:36:15 AM, sadolite wrote:
"The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party."

See where it says, "State of Arizona"? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what requires the US Supreme Court to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. -- sadolite

FAAAAAAIIIIILLLL.

The State of Arizona is a defendant. Your point is moot.
President of DDO