5 ms·

>"the courts are not empowered" You are now the second person to make this claim. It's not true. Specifically, the courts are empowered to hear such petitions

>"the courts are not empowered" You are now the second person to make this claim. It's not true. Specifically, the courts are empowered to hear such petitions by Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution: >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

dragonwriter 11y ago
> You are now the second person to make this claim. I didn't make any claim about the courts being empowered or not empowered to hear particular cases, which is why you had to cut out a small phrase from the middle of the sentence out of context to respond to with your irrelevancy. I made a claim about the parts of governments that can be petitioned for things that the judiciary is not empowered to resolve, without any discussion of what the judiciary is empowered to resolve. (The question of the correctness of the well-established legal principle that the existence of a "Case" requires the allegation of a concrete, particularized, redressable injury is perhaps an interesting discussion, but not one which I made any claim regarding.)
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Well, you must be claiming that there is at least one particular case that a court may not be empowered to address. Otherwise, why are you making that specific distinction? That claim is trivially false, again by Article III, Section 2, Sentence 1: >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. If you already accept that something is a case, the judicial Power extends to it, it does not matter what the particulars are.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    He did not say there are cases that courts are not empowered to address. He said there are petitions that courts are not empowered to address. His view, as espoused in the comment above, is a minimal one: there are some petitions that courts are not empowered to hear. This is only incoherent under Art III if one conflates "petitions" with "cases," contrary to the well-established legal meanings of those terms. (Although, actually, there is another hole in your logic: a petition could be a 'case' but not a case in either law or equity "arising under this Constitution" etc. etc. The most obvious example would be a suit between two citizens of the same state arising under state law. It is well settled that federal courts cannot hear such cases. But since petitions and cases are quite distinct legal categories to begin with, I won't go any farther down that particular rabbit hole.)
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      The distinction was made in the post I responded to. This is about petitions, but specifically petitions for redress of grievances. This puts them squarely within Equity. Since HN likes to severely rate-limit my speech, I'll respond here to some other points people are making. dragonwriter gave a counter-example where a hypothetical group attempting to amend the Constitution is viewed as a petition for redress of grievances that courts are not empowered to hear. It may be correct that such a move could be labeled as a petition (though, I might contest such labeling), an Amendment is not a redress of grievances, it's merely the changing of text in a document. It is therefore not (nor is the act of attempting it) a petition for (nor actual) redress of grievances and is not a counter-example. The meaning of Amendments is even explicitly given in Article V. tptacek seems to think that my argument means that we are subject to the whims of unelected philosopher kings. I ask, when has that not been true? The US Supreme Court usurped its power very early on in US history. The fact that we, people in 2015, live by the words of people who are no longer alive (and haven't been for a coupleish centuries) is bare testament. But, my answer is that it depends on the structure of the court. If the judge is an unelected philosopher king, then yes, we are subject to them. If you have some other, 'democratic' (or whatever system you propose) judge, court, or other arbiter, then you are subject to whatever rules exist in that system (which...maybe could be something other than the whims of philosopher kings? Not sure).

dragonwriter 11y ago

> You are now the second person to make this claim. I didn't make any claim about the courts being empowered or not empowered to hear particular cases, which is why you had to cut out a small phrase from the middle of the sentence out of context to respond to with your irrelevancy. I made a claim about the parts of governments that can be petitioned for things that the judiciary is not empowered to resolve, without any discussion of what the judiciary is empowered to resolve. (The question of the correctness of the well-established legal principle that the existence of a "Case" requires the allegation of a concrete, particularized, redressable injury is perhaps an interesting discussion, but not one which I made any claim regarding.)

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Well, you must be claiming that there is at least one particular case that a court may not be empowered to address. Otherwise, why are you making that specific distinction? That claim is trivially false, again by Article III, Section 2, Sentence 1: >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. If you already accept that something is a case, the judicial Power extends to it, it does not matter what the particulars are.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  He did not say there are cases that courts are not empowered to address. He said there are petitions that courts are not empowered to address. His view, as espoused in the comment above, is a minimal one: there are some petitions that courts are not empowered to hear. This is only incoherent under Art III if one conflates "petitions" with "cases," contrary to the well-established legal meanings of those terms. (Although, actually, there is another hole in your logic: a petition could be a 'case' but not a case in either law or equity "arising under this Constitution" etc. etc. The most obvious example would be a suit between two citizens of the same state arising under state law. It is well settled that federal courts cannot hear such cases. But since petitions and cases are quite distinct legal categories to begin with, I won't go any farther down that particular rabbit hole.)
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    The distinction was made in the post I responded to. This is about petitions, but specifically petitions for redress of grievances. This puts them squarely within Equity. Since HN likes to severely rate-limit my speech, I'll respond here to some other points people are making. dragonwriter gave a counter-example where a hypothetical group attempting to amend the Constitution is viewed as a petition for redress of grievances that courts are not empowered to hear. It may be correct that such a move could be labeled as a petition (though, I might contest such labeling), an Amendment is not a redress of grievances, it's merely the changing of text in a document. It is therefore not (nor is the act of attempting it) a petition for (nor actual) redress of grievances and is not a counter-example. The meaning of Amendments is even explicitly given in Article V. tptacek seems to think that my argument means that we are subject to the whims of unelected philosopher kings. I ask, when has that not been true? The US Supreme Court usurped its power very early on in US history. The fact that we, people in 2015, live by the words of people who are no longer alive (and haven't been for a coupleish centuries) is bare testament. But, my answer is that it depends on the structure of the court. If the judge is an unelected philosopher king, then yes, we are subject to them. If you have some other, 'democratic' (or whatever system you propose) judge, court, or other arbiter, then you are subject to whatever rules exist in that system (which...maybe could be something other than the whims of philosopher kings? Not sure).