Did Obama /Holder file in the wrong court?

[ConHog]

It appears that they did. I was looking something else up this morning and came across this, which I'm sure I've read before but didn't realize.

Article 3 Section 2 of the COTUS

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.


So, it would appear that the lower courts have no jurisdiction here and the case should have went immediately to the SCOTUS.

 

[ConHog]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/immig...did-obama-holder-file-in-the-wrong-court.html

 

[jillian]

you can't look at that clause without looking at THIS one:

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.

In this particular case, jurisdiction lies with the federal district court established pursuant to that enabling section. For example:

Congress has provided that suits between citizens of different states may be heard in the federal courts or the state courts, but they may be heard in the federal courts only if the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000

Understanding the Federal Courts

The federal courts have jurisdiction over three types of cases: those involving a federal law, those involving an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and those involving citizens of different states, but only if more than $75,000 in damages is sought. Bankruptcy, for example, is based on federal law and, in fact, bankruptcy courts exist within the federal system to handle those matters. The federal courts are also where new citizens are sworn in.

State & Federal Courts

the district courts are the trial level courts to which the task of hearing most federal cases has been assigned pursuant to Article 3, Section 1.

and even if the supreme court has original jurisdiction, it does not have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, but instead has concurrent jurisdiction in these areas.

And while I appreciate your question, it is infuriating that hacks at blogs like worldnetdaily profess to set forth constitutional pronouncements that are wholly totally and incredibly misleading... which is why i can't stand the pretend constitutionalists. they pervert the law and people's view of it.

 

[ConHog]

you can't look at that clause without looking at THIS one:

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.

In this particular case, jurisdiction lies with the federal district court established pursuant to that enabling section. For example:

Congress has provided that suits between citizens of different states may be heard in the federal courts or the state courts, but they may be heard in the federal courts only if the amount in controversy exceeds $50,000

Understanding the Federal Courts

The federal courts have jurisdiction over three types of cases: those involving a federal law, those involving an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and those involving citizens of different states, but only if more than $75,000 in damages is sought. Bankruptcy, for example, is based on federal law and, in fact, bankruptcy courts exist within the federal system to handle those matters. The federal courts are also where new citizens are sworn in.

State & Federal Courts

the district courts are the trial level courts to which the task of hearing most federal cases has been assigned pursuant to Article 3, Section 1.

and even if the supreme court has original jurisdiction, it does not have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, but instead has concurrent jurisdiction in these areas.

And while I appreciate your question, it is infuriating that hacks at blogs like worldnetdaily profess to set forth constitutional pronouncements that are wholly totally and incredibly misleading... which is why i can't stand the pretend constitutionalists. they pervert the law and people's view of it.

Respectfully, I disagree.

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.

I realize it is not the best source in the world, but in this case I liked the easy to read definitions, and so I will use it.

The original jurisdiction of a court is the right to hear a case for the first time as opposed to appellate jurisdiction when a court has the right to review a lower court's decision. In the United States these courts are also referred to as trial courts.

Original jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now obviously there is noway a case can be heard by a lower court and then for the SCOTUS to have original jurisdiction.

Now, does this matter? In the grand scheme , probably not, but it seems clear that several parties on both sides, including the lower courts simply don't understand the COTUS. It is CLEAR this case should have went straight to the SCOTUS

 

[Luissa]

It appears that they did. I was looking something else up this morning and came across this, which I'm sure I've read before but didn't realize.

Article 3 Section 2 of the COTUS

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.


So, it would appear that the lower courts have no jurisdiction here and the case should have went immediately to the SCOTUS.

It just states they have the right to hear the case for the first time, not that it must be heard by them.

 

[jillian]

if you were correct, it would have been raised below. there's a reason it wasn't raised.

you can't simply look at the constitution without looking at the laws and caselaw and rules promulgated under it.

 

[ConHog]

It appears that they did. I was looking something else up this morning and came across this, which I'm sure I've read before but didn't realize.

Article 3 Section 2 of the COTUS

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.


So, it would appear that the lower courts have no jurisdiction here and the case should have went immediately to the SCOTUS.

It just states they have the right to hear the case for the first time, not that it must be heard by them.

And the SCOTUS declined to hear this case when exactly? Oh they didn't which means the case was filed in the wrong court as claimed in my OP.

 

[ConHog]

if you were correct, it would have been raised below. there's a reason it wasn't raised.

you can't simply look at the constitution without looking at the laws and caselaw and rules promulgated under it.

You and I both know that procedural errors have been missed all the way to the SCOTUS before Jillian. It happens.

And I don't doubt for one second that there is a possibility that Holder knowingly filed in the wrong court.

 

[Luissa]

It appears that they did. I was looking something else up this morning and came across this, which I'm sure I've read before but didn't realize.

Article 3 Section 2 of the COTUS

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.


So, it would appear that the lower courts have no jurisdiction here and the case should have went immediately to the SCOTUS.

It just states they have the right to hear the case for the first time, not that it must be heard by them.

And the SCOTUS declined to hear this case when exactly? Oh they didn't which means the case was filed in the wrong court as claimed in my OP.

They do not have to decline to see it, for it to be heard in another court. Did you not notice the part where they mentioned they had appellate jurisdiction in all other cases?
It is pretty clear it states that they can bring a case directly to the Supreme Court in certain matters, but do not have to.

The original jurisdiction of a court is the right to hear a case for the first time as opposed to appellate jurisdiction when a court has the right to review a lower court's decision. In the United States these courts are also referred to as trial courts. Original jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No where does it say they must!

 

[ConHog]

It just states they have the right to hear the case for the first time, not that it must be heard by them.

And the SCOTUS declined to hear this case when exactly? Oh they didn't which means the case was filed in the wrong court as claimed in my OP.

They do not have to decline to see it, for it to be heard in another court. Did you not notice the part where they mentioned they had appellate jurisdiction in all other cases?
It is pretty clear it states that they can bring a case directly to the Supreme Court in certain matters, but do not have to.

The original jurisdiction of a court is the right to hear a case for the first time as opposed to appellate jurisdiction when a court has the right to review a lower court's decision. In the United States these courts are also referred to as trial courts. Original jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No where does it say they must!

You need to learn to read, or better yet you need to learn not to post in threads in which you don't have a clue.

 

[goldcatt]

Corndog, do you have any idea how ridiculous your argument is?

Every time a State law is challenged on Constitutional grounds, a State is a party. Every time a prisoner incarcerated at the State level files a habeas appeal, a State is a party. Every quibble over riparian rights or other squabble between states, at least one State is a party.

We're talking hundreds of cases every year. No, THOUSANDS of cases. That's why COTUS allows Congress to authorize and maintain inferior courts. SCOTUS could never, ever handle the load of all those trials if it did not cede original jurisdiction in most instances to the lower courts. And guess what? It's worked that way pretty well for more than 200 years now. Go figure.

But...you'd have to have some remedial knowledge of the structure and operation of the court system to understand these bare bones basics of jurisdiction. I mean, we're talking one plus one equals two here.

Carry on!

 

[Luissa]

And the SCOTUS declined to hear this case when exactly? Oh they didn't which means the case was filed in the wrong court as claimed in my OP.

They do not have to decline to see it, for it to be heard in another court. Did you not notice the part where they mentioned they had appellate jurisdiction in all other cases?
It is pretty clear it states that they can bring a case directly to the Supreme Court in certain matters, but do not have to.

The original jurisdiction of a court is the right to hear a case for the first time as opposed to appellate jurisdiction when a court has the right to review a lower court's decision. In the United States these courts are also referred to as trial courts. Original jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No where does it say they must!

You need to learn to read, or better yet you need to learn not to post in threads in which you don't have a clue.

Obviously I have more of clue than you do, since both the lawyers who posted in this thread said pretty much the same thing I did.
So maybe you should not post threads you have no clue about.

 

[goldcatt]

They do not have to decline to see it, for it to be heard in another court. Did you not notice the part where they mentioned they had appellate jurisdiction in all other cases?
It is pretty clear it states that they can bring a case directly to the Supreme Court in certain matters, but do not have to.

The original jurisdiction of a court is the right to hear a case for the first time as opposed to appellate jurisdiction when a court has the right to review a lower court's decision. In the United States these courts are also referred to as trial courts. Original jurisdiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No where does it say they must!

You need to learn to read, or better yet you need to learn not to post in threads in which you don't have a clue.

Obviously I have more of clue than you do, since both the lawyers who posted in this thread said pretty much the same thing I did.
So maybe you should not post threads you have no clue about.

It's all right there in black and white, if you know how to read that is.

I agree with jillian on the so-called constitutionalists. There's nothing inherently wrong with the point of view itself (although I personally disagree with it), but the "sources" most of them rely on and get duped by....ugh.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It appears that they did. I was looking something else up this morning and came across this, which I'm sure I've read before but didn't realize.

Article 3 Section 2 of the COTUS

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.


So, it would appear that the lower courts have no jurisdiction here and the case should have went immediately to the SCOTUS.

They did not sue Arizona, they sued the governor of Arizona.

Law is in the technicalities.