Discussion: Original Jurisdiction

All of the information below is referenced by Publius-Huldah’s Blog, which uses it to conclude,

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial of the Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer.

US 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. (emphasis added)

Federalist 81 (Hamilton)

Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union.   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.  ” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns.   All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation.   Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them.   In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal. (emphasis added)

US Code: TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 81 > § 1251

§ 1251. Original jurisdiction

(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. (emphasis added)

Federalist 78 (Hamilton)

Details

Federal Judge Allows 10th Amendment Obamacare Suit to Proceed

Writes Ilya Somin at Volokh: Federal District Judge Henry Hudson’s opinion refusing to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care plan has several interesting aspects. The suit focuses primarily on a challenge to the “individual mandate” element of the plan, which requires most American citizens and legal residents to purchase a…

Details

The Supreme Court as Ultimate Arbiters?

“To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate Arbiters of Constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps – and their power is the more dangerous as they are in the office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are to the Elective control. The Constitution has elected no single Tribunal. I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves”
~ Thomas Jefferson

As We the People approach our responsibilities regarding Elective control, it would serve us well to spend some time to study, listen, research and ask some deeper, perhaps, constitutional questions of the candidates that are offering to represent us. If we ever hope to begin to reverse the madness of out of control, tax and spend, corrupt and dishonest state and federal governments, it is indeed our duty to do our best to insure that we are not repeating the same process and expecting different results.

Details

Is Obama Care Illegal?

Well, of course it is…but Dom Armentano makes an interesting case that under status quo, it’s not – but yet – still horribly immoral and wrong. Here’s an excerpt: To find the mandates in Obama Care illegal and, indeed, to roll back the bulk of economic regulation on business, would require a radical rethinking of…

Details

Is Gay Marriage the Key to Ending Obamacare?

In David Kopel’s July 9th post, he shares with readers some of the legal reasons why the recent Gay Marriage decision was a boon for Tenthers.  Though current nullification efforts do not depend on the courts for validation, this article is important to study.  Many Americans still find themselves as disciples of the judiciary & for debates with people of this mindset, you can share with them some of the points below.  It seems that even the courts are taking a renewed interest in our Tenth Amendment.
Details

Proof the DOMA Ruling was Spot On.

Well, “proof” is defined by perspective, right? All the proof I need on this one is just one man’s name.

Jack Balkin.

Jack is a “leading constitutional scholar” from Yale. What does that mean? He advocates the living constitution. You know the one – the kind of constitution that morphs and changes based on the whims of politicians, judges, and Jack himself.

I consider him one of the worst of the worst in this field. And, what did he have to say about the DOMA case?

Details

Federal Court Makes Rare Ruling in Favor of the 10th Amendment

A Federal Judge today ruled in favor of the Tenth Amendment, which is an unusually rare result. What was the issue? DOMA and gay marriage. From the WSJ blog:

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from giving pension and other benefits to same sex couples, is unconstitutional, reports the Associated Press.

Tauro wrote that the 1996 law ran afoul of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. “The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment,” Tauro wrote.

The problem, though, is that they don’t apply this same principle to everything. They should – and need to.

A few quick points.

Details

Supreme Court Gun Decision Won’t Affect NYC

Already, one serious gun control group is HAPPY….you got that?….with the new supreme court ruling. New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (a gun-control group), is pleased with the decision. Says the director: All the other amendments have reasonable restrictions on them. So I actually really like the Heller decision and the McDonald decision because they put…

Details

Supreme Court Nominee Could Coronate Obama

Writes Bruce Fein: …If confirmed by the United States Senate, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will crown President Obama with “imperial” constitutional powers. Congress and Federal Courts will wither as checks against his presidential usurpations or abuses whenever war or other national security claims are bugled over Iran, North Korea, Yemen, international terrorism, economic adversity,…

Details

Disposing the Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

In addition to Robert Nagel’s column on rejecting judicial remedies for our political disagreements (posted earlier on the Tenther blog), National Review Online has also treated us to two columns by Prof. Robert Lowry Clinton. The first, “Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution,” disposes of the doctrine of judicial supremacy by looking at the Supreme Court’s…

Details