5 ms·

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

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
    > 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. Changing law (including the Constitution) is as much a redress of grievances as issuing judicial orders (which is no more than "creating a new document with text" when looked at on the same level of analysis at which a change to law or Constitution is "changing the text of a document".)
  - tptacek 11y ago
    So you're not so much arguing jurisprudence as you are trying to work from first principles on the premise of US government?
    - idlewords 11y ago
      Somebody's got to do it, and what better place than this thread?
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      I'm only arguing the current status of US law.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Well, you must be claiming that there is at least one particular case that a court may not be empowered to address. (1) No, I'm saying that there are petitions protected by the First Amendment right to petition that are not cases within the power of the courts to resolve, and (2) More particularly to the issue in this thread, the concrete, particularized injury (where injury is a violation of a legally-protected interest) requirement is a threshold test for whether something is a case, and (3) Finally, there are cases that the federal courts are not empowered to address; the reason that Article III has to spend so many words enumerating all the kinds of cases and controversies that are within the judicial power is that all the other kinds of cases (and controversies) are not within that power.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  RE: (3) Such as? If I'm reading the text correctly, the judicial power extends to every case and controversy of any human being.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Such as? For one example: Cases in law or equity arising under state law, between citizens of the same U.S. state, none of whom are ambassadors, public ministers, or consuls, and who are not claiming land under grants from different states. > If I'm reading the text correctly, the judicial power extends to every case and controversy of any human being. You are not reading the text correctly.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Sorry, but all of those cases are covered by the first clause: >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution [,etc] Well, assuming the case between the citizens of the same state are Cases of Law and/or Equity (is there another type?). Some of these cases are explicitly protected by the US Constitution itself (c.f. Amendment VII).
      - 11y ago

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
  > 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. Changing law (including the Constitution) is as much a redress of grievances as issuing judicial orders (which is no more than "creating a new document with text" when looked at on the same level of analysis at which a change to law or Constitution is "changing the text of a document".)
- tptacek 11y ago
  So you're not so much arguing jurisprudence as you are trying to work from first principles on the premise of US government?
  - idlewords 11y ago
    Somebody's got to do it, and what better place than this thread?
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    I'm only arguing the current status of US law.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Well, you must be claiming that there is at least one particular case that a court may not be empowered to address. (1) No, I'm saying that there are petitions protected by the First Amendment right to petition that are not cases within the power of the courts to resolve, and (2) More particularly to the issue in this thread, the concrete, particularized injury (where injury is a violation of a legally-protected interest) requirement is a threshold test for whether something is a case, and (3) Finally, there are cases that the federal courts are not empowered to address; the reason that Article III has to spend so many words enumerating all the kinds of cases and controversies that are within the judicial power is that all the other kinds of cases (and controversies) are not within that power.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
RE: (3) Such as? If I'm reading the text correctly, the judicial power extends to every case and controversy of any human being.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Such as? For one example: Cases in law or equity arising under state law, between citizens of the same U.S. state, none of whom are ambassadors, public ministers, or consuls, and who are not claiming land under grants from different states. > If I'm reading the text correctly, the judicial power extends to every case and controversy of any human being. You are not reading the text correctly.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Sorry, but all of those cases are covered by the first clause: >The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution [,etc] Well, assuming the case between the citizens of the same state are Cases of Law and/or Equity (is there another type?). Some of these cases are explicitly protected by the US Constitution itself (c.f. Amendment VII).
    - 11y ago