3 ms·

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 Constitutio

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...)
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      United States refers to the now (well, upon ratification) literally, united, individual states. This is plain and obvious just from reading the document. Laws refers to the laws of those collective states (including laws enacted in a single state and those enacted collectively through the Congress). It is not so much the pluralization in United States that is interesting (it is actually obvious that it must be that way [since we are talking about a collection of states]), but the pluralization in Laws. The Article refers to a collection of laws, not a single unit. US Federal Law is a single unit manifested in the U.S. Code. You will see these referred to as Law elsewhere in the document. You are confusing courts, jurisdiction, and judicial Power. While certain courts may be established with particular jurisdiction, the judicial Power extends over them. Congress has actually already ruled on this (See 28 U.S. Code § 1257(a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1257 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1257). You will be able to pull in any State law on (at least) Amendment IX and/or Amendment X grounds. Again I ask, can you point to a Particular Case where the US Supreme Court is not empowered to rule (or will not be able to eventually, once all other levels have failed)?
      - jsprogrammer 11y ago
        Well, the edit window for the above post is now gone, but... You can also see that the first clause is talking about the collection of States in the use of 'their' at the end: >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 In Article III, Section 2, Sentence 1, United States does not refer to a monolithic entity and Laws does not refer to a specific unit of law (U.S. Code). The sentence refers to the totality of all laws that exist within the United States (that is, all states which the Constitution subsumed). Can someone show a valid parse of that sentence that means otherwise?
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        You are clearly unfamiliar with historical linguistic references to the federal government; use of the plural form was the norm from the foundation of the United States as an organization with institutions through the period of the Articles of Confederation and the early part of the period under the Constitution. Tge institutions, laws, etc. of the federal government were, at least in terms of grammar, portrayed as belonging collectively to the states, not to a singular entity named "the United States". The singular form, IIRC, didn't become common until sometime in the mid- to late-19th century (maybe after the civil war.)

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...)
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    United States refers to the now (well, upon ratification) literally, united, individual states. This is plain and obvious just from reading the document. Laws refers to the laws of those collective states (including laws enacted in a single state and those enacted collectively through the Congress). It is not so much the pluralization in United States that is interesting (it is actually obvious that it must be that way [since we are talking about a collection of states]), but the pluralization in Laws. The Article refers to a collection of laws, not a single unit. US Federal Law is a single unit manifested in the U.S. Code. You will see these referred to as Law elsewhere in the document. You are confusing courts, jurisdiction, and judicial Power. While certain courts may be established with particular jurisdiction, the judicial Power extends over them. Congress has actually already ruled on this (See 28 U.S. Code § 1257(a) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1257 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1257). You will be able to pull in any State law on (at least) Amendment IX and/or Amendment X grounds. Again I ask, can you point to a Particular Case where the US Supreme Court is not empowered to rule (or will not be able to eventually, once all other levels have failed)?
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      Well, the edit window for the above post is now gone, but... You can also see that the first clause is talking about the collection of States in the use of 'their' at the end: >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 In Article III, Section 2, Sentence 1, United States does not refer to a monolithic entity and Laws does not refer to a specific unit of law (U.S. Code). The sentence refers to the totality of all laws that exist within the United States (that is, all states which the Constitution subsumed). Can someone show a valid parse of that sentence that means otherwise?
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        You are clearly unfamiliar with historical linguistic references to the federal government; use of the plural form was the norm from the foundation of the United States as an organization with institutions through the period of the Articles of Confederation and the early part of the period under the Constitution. Tge institutions, laws, etc. of the federal government were, at least in terms of grammar, portrayed as belonging collectively to the states, not to a singular entity named "the United States". The singular form, IIRC, didn't become common until sometime in the mid- to late-19th century (maybe after the civil war.)