Arizona's New Immigration Law

I'd really like a lawyer to chime in, but here is a good article on original jurisdiction:

The Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - United States Constitution (http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-3/32-original-jurisdiction.html)

There is lots of historical background (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=2&invol=297) on the subject but all that's needed is The Judiciary Act of 1789 (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm) passed by the first congress:

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul, or vice consul, shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court, in all actions at law against citizens of the United States, shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.



p.s. You can take any suite to the Supreme Court but that doesn't mean it will get reviewed and you get adjudication.

There is lots of historical background (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=2&invol=297) on the subject but all that's needed is The Judiciary Act of 1789 (http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm) passed by the first congress:

I am sure we can bicker back and forth, but The Judiciary Act of 1789, and specifically part of clause 13 was nullified by Marshall:

However, another clause of § 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was not accorded the same presumption by Chief Justice Marshall, who, interpreting it as giving the Court power to issue a writ of mandamus on an original proceeding, declared that as Congress could not restrict the original jurisdiction neither could it enlarge it and pronounced the clause void.1093

I doubt gafinfan's right that the lawsuit was invalid solely because it was brought in the wrong court, but really, unless I miss my guess, none of us are Supreme Court scholars.

Of course I realize Saden stays at a Holiday Inn Express EVERY night, so he is always chocked full of knowledge!

I am sure we can bicker back and forth, but The Judiciary Act of 1789, and specifically part of clause 13 was nullified by Marshall:


I doubt gafinfan's right that the lawsuit was invalid solely because it was brought in the wrong court, but really, unless I miss my guess, none of us are Supreme Court scholars.

Of course I realize Saden stays at a Holiday Inn Express EVERY night, so he is always chocked full of knowledge!

You're sure he nullified section 13? You should read your own link again, understand it, then try again. Nullify means a specific thing.

You don't have to be a Supreme Court Scholar or stay at a Holiday Inn to know you sue officials in Federal Courts before the Supreme Court. I have sued several federal official pro-se and successfully in Federal Court.

You're sure he nullified section 13? You should read your own link again, understand it, then try again. Nullify means a specific thing.

You don't have to be a Supreme Court Scholar or stay at a Holiday Inn to know you sue officials in Federal Courts before the Supreme Court. I have sued several federal official pro-se and successfully in Federal Court.

I didn't say he nullified section 13, I said he nullified a part (or clause) of it, or as my link said, he voided it. But, please continue your lectures, personally I am always entertained.

I didn't say he nullified section 13, I said he nullified a part (or clause) of it, or as my link said, he voided it. But, please continue your lectures, personally I am always entertained.

I enjoy being professorial...you reach I teach is my motto.

You're sure he nullified section 13? You should read your own link again, understand it, then try again. Nullify means a specific thing.

You don't have to be a Supreme Court Scholar or stay at a Holiday Inn to know you sue officials in Federal Courts before the Supreme Court. I have sued several federal official pro-se and successfully in Federal Court.

Oh dear, are you the President or the AG suing a State?

Let us be clear about which we debate and Marshall was right IMVHO.

The full text:

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(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.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

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.


Marshall was quite correct in his ruling: In all other cases the Congress shall have Exceptions as they may by law have directed.

One doesn't have to be a lawyer to see that common sense tells us that if Congress were to be able to legislate the Supreme Court there would be no justification for having one in the first place. It is in fact one of the three branches equal to and in balance with the other two. JMO of course being I never stay at the Holiday Inn.:laughing-

BTW I never said one couldn't do whatever as surely history has shown us the government has trashed the Constitution whenever they felt the need to grab more power, as in any crisis will do. Never the less that does not make it right. ;)

You're right, they're all stupid and wrong about the Constitution and case jurisdiction. Sadly the Constitution means nothing anymore and people seem to be OK with it.

FRBSF Economic Letter: The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity (2010-26, 8/30/2010) (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-26.html)

FRBSF Economic Letter: The Effect of Immigrants on U.S. Employment and Productivity (2010-26, 8/30/2010) (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-26.html)

I think it only to fair to post an "Idaho" Federal Reserve publication to neutralize your SF post.