6 ms·

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).
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    The important part of Art III that you are misunderstanding is covered by your "etc.". This clause (though not the entire sentence) is limited to cases "arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." This excludes cases arising under state law. (Because "laws of the United States" means, basically, "federal laws." I realize this is not self evident, but I assure you that this is indeed the historical and accepted legal meaning of the phrase. I suggest googling it if you don't believe me. One clue that this is the case is the fact that this limitation is not included in subsequent clauses in that sentence.)
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Yes, the [, etc] does cover it. Specifically, the Laws of the United States. You can know purely from the pluralization alone, but it is also evident in the entirety of the document and historical context. Each State's Laws are a component of the Laws of the United States (in addition to the Constitution and those passed by Congress). Can you point me to a Particular Case that the judicial Power does not extend to? Are you seriously arguing that States can act without judicial oversight?
      - pdabbadabba 11y ago
        Well, I must admit that I don't have much more energy for this. But here are some final thoughts: 1. "United States" is, of course, a proper noun. That "States" in pluralized within it tells us nothing. 2. It is, in fact, very well established that the federal judicial power does not extend to suits between citizens of the same state that arise under federal law and, likewise, that "laws of the United States" refers to federal, and not state laws. This rule is as old as the United States itself: see Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/14/304.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/14/304.html. In fact, Alexander Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 80. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed80.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed80.asp Here is a fairly accurate overview: http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/federal-vs-state-courts-key-differences.html http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/federal-vs-state-... 3. I had assumed it was clear that Article III only relates to the powers of the federal judiciary. State courts are totally unaffected by it. (This is, a result of the fact that Article III, by its terms, only vests powers in courts "of the United States" which, again, means "federal courts.") This means that, although federal courts cannot hear cases between citizens of the same state arising under state law, state courts still can and do. In fact, with a few exceptions, state court can hear all the cases that federal courts can, and then some. But you will not be able to find a single case in the last 200 years where a U.S. federal court constituted under Article III (without later getting reversed on appeal) has ruled on the merits of a dispute between citizens of only one state, where the dispute involved only a question of state law. Guaranteed. (Though I'm intentionally being precise in my language here. Things do get tricky when there are multiple plaintiffs and defendants, multiple state and federal claims, etc. all in the same case. This gets into some of those nasty details: http://www.pavlacklawfirm.com/blog/2013/01/25/federal-diversity-jurisdiction-and-the-121352/ http://www.pavlacklawfirm.com/blog/2013/01/25/federal-divers...)

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).
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  The important part of Art III that you are misunderstanding is covered by your "etc.". This clause (though not the entire sentence) is limited to cases "arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority." This excludes cases arising under state law. (Because "laws of the United States" means, basically, "federal laws." I realize this is not self evident, but I assure you that this is indeed the historical and accepted legal meaning of the phrase. I suggest googling it if you don't believe me. One clue that this is the case is the fact that this limitation is not included in subsequent clauses in that sentence.)
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    Yes, the [, etc] does cover it. Specifically, the Laws of the United States. You can know purely from the pluralization alone, but it is also evident in the entirety of the document and historical context. Each State's Laws are a component of the Laws of the United States (in addition to the Constitution and those passed by Congress). Can you point me to a Particular Case that the judicial Power does not extend to? Are you seriously arguing that States can act without judicial oversight?
    - pdabbadabba 11y ago
      Well, I must admit that I don't have much more energy for this. But here are some final thoughts: 1. "United States" is, of course, a proper noun. That "States" in pluralized within it tells us nothing. 2. It is, in fact, very well established that the federal judicial power does not extend to suits between citizens of the same state that arise under federal law and, likewise, that "laws of the United States" refers to federal, and not state laws. This rule is as old as the United States itself: see Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/14/304.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/14/304.html. In fact, Alexander Hamilton discussed this in Federalist 80. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed80.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed80.asp Here is a fairly accurate overview: http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/federal-vs-state-courts-key-differences.html http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/federal-vs-state-... 3. I had assumed it was clear that Article III only relates to the powers of the federal judiciary. State courts are totally unaffected by it. (This is, a result of the fact that Article III, by its terms, only vests powers in courts "of the United States" which, again, means "federal courts.") This means that, although federal courts cannot hear cases between citizens of the same state arising under state law, state courts still can and do. In fact, with a few exceptions, state court can hear all the cases that federal courts can, and then some. But you will not be able to find a single case in the last 200 years where a U.S. federal court constituted under Article III (without later getting reversed on appeal) has ruled on the merits of a dispute between citizens of only one state, where the dispute involved only a question of state law. Guaranteed. (Though I'm intentionally being precise in my language here. Things do get tricky when there are multiple plaintiffs and defendants, multiple state and federal claims, etc. all in the same case. This gets into some of those nasty details: http://www.pavlacklawfirm.com/blog/2013/01/25/federal-diversity-jurisdiction-and-the-121352/ http://www.pavlacklawfirm.com/blog/2013/01/25/federal-divers...)