8 ms·

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 'th

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.)
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  This is exactly what I am arguing. There is no reading where Laws of the United States refers exclusively to U.S. Code. As I said, to show that I'm wrong, one only needs to provide a valid parsing of the sentence where United States refers exclusively to a monolithic entity known as the federal government (note that "federal" does not appear anywhere in the document). If you look at the other usages of United States in the document, it becomes even more clear that it refers to the States as a collective and not to a separate entity. The other thing someone could show that would prove me wrong, is a Particular Case that the US Supreme Court will never be able to hear. I haven't seen anyone even attempt to show such a case. Some hypotheticals and lots of pushing words around, but no actual Case.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    Federal courts, including the U.S. supreme court refuse to hear cases for lack of jurisdiction all the time. As in, many times every day. At the Supreme Court, one place to see this is in the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds, that applies when reviewing decisions of a state's highest court. Here is the Wikipedia page on that concept with several citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adequate_and_independent_state_ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adequate_and_independent_state... For other federal courts, one relevant concept is "federal question jurisdiction." (So called, because raising a "federal question," is synonymous with presenting a case that arises under the "laws of the United States.") Here is a classic case on that issue (though it is much more complex than necessary to prove the present point.) Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/454/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/454/case.htm... Here is a relevant quote (though if you really want to learn how this all works, I recommend reading the entire case carefully): > "We find it unnecessary to consider other objections to the maintenance of these three bills, or of any of them, because we are clearly of opinion that each suit is not one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, of which the circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction, either original, or by removal from a state court, under the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, as corrected by the Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866. 25 Stat. 434." And here is a more quotidian example: Lake v. Malone, No. CA 3:11-824-CMC-PJG, 2011 WL 2162711, at 2 (D.S.C. May 6, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, No. CA 3:11-824-CMC-PJG, 2011 WL 2162159 (D.S.C. June 1, 2011) > “This case is subject to summary dismissal because the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint do not fall within the scope of either form of this court's limited jurisdiction, and there is no other possible basis for federal jurisdiction evident from the face of the pleading. There is no viable federal question alleged and there is no apparent diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants. > Generally, a case can be originally filed in a federal district court if there is “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or “diversity of citizenship” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir.1998). Since federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, there is no presumption that the court has jurisdiction. Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir.1999) (citing Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U.S. 337 (1895). Accordingly, a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists, “and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” Bulldog Trucking, 147 F.3d at 352; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears ... that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”). “[T]he facts providing the court jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.” Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648, 650 (4th Cir.1988) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)). To this end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (1)requires that the complaint provide “a short plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends[.]” If, however, the complaint does not contain “an affirmative pleading of a jurisdictional basis, the federal court may find that it has jurisdiction if the facts supporting jurisdiction have been clearly pleaded.” Pinkley, Inc., 191 F.3d at 399 (citing 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 8.03[3] (3d ed.1997)). Although the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir.1999). If the court, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, finds insufficient allegations in the pleadings, the court will lack subject matter jurisdiction. Id.” By the way, you're right in one small, interesting respect: "laws of the United States" does not just refer to the U.S. Code. It also refers to federal regulations, federal common law, state-law claims bound up in the same dispute as a federal-law claim where the state-law issues do not predominate, and the very rare state law issue that raises significant federal interests. As you can see, lawyers and judges have given this phrase a lot of thought over the years. And don't forget that Art III does also allow cases under state law to be brought in federal courts when the litigants are from different states. But you remain quite wrong that Art III, and the term "laws of the United States," refers to all laws in the United States, whether state of federal, as the two cases above clearly demonstrate. If I were wrong about this, I would have done very poorly in my Federal Courts class in law school.

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.)

jsprogrammer 11y ago
This is exactly what I am arguing. There is no reading where Laws of the United States refers exclusively to U.S. Code. As I said, to show that I'm wrong, one only needs to provide a valid parsing of the sentence where United States refers exclusively to a monolithic entity known as the federal government (note that "federal" does not appear anywhere in the document). If you look at the other usages of United States in the document, it becomes even more clear that it refers to the States as a collective and not to a separate entity. The other thing someone could show that would prove me wrong, is a Particular Case that the US Supreme Court will never be able to hear. I haven't seen anyone even attempt to show such a case. Some hypotheticals and lots of pushing words around, but no actual Case.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Federal courts, including the U.S. supreme court refuse to hear cases for lack of jurisdiction all the time. As in, many times every day. At the Supreme Court, one place to see this is in the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds, that applies when reviewing decisions of a state's highest court. Here is the Wikipedia page on that concept with several citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adequate_and_independent_state_ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adequate_and_independent_state... For other federal courts, one relevant concept is "federal question jurisdiction." (So called, because raising a "federal question," is synonymous with presenting a case that arises under the "laws of the United States.") Here is a classic case on that issue (though it is much more complex than necessary to prove the present point.) Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/454/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/454/case.htm... Here is a relevant quote (though if you really want to learn how this all works, I recommend reading the entire case carefully): > "We find it unnecessary to consider other objections to the maintenance of these three bills, or of any of them, because we are clearly of opinion that each suit is not one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, of which the circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction, either original, or by removal from a state court, under the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, as corrected by the Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866. 25 Stat. 434." And here is a more quotidian example: Lake v. Malone, No. CA 3:11-824-CMC-PJG, 2011 WL 2162711, at 2 (D.S.C. May 6, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, No. CA 3:11-824-CMC-PJG, 2011 WL 2162159 (D.S.C. June 1, 2011) > “This case is subject to summary dismissal because the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint do not fall within the scope of either form of this court's limited jurisdiction, and there is no other possible basis for federal jurisdiction evident from the face of the pleading. There is no viable federal question alleged and there is no apparent diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants. > Generally, a case can be originally filed in a federal district court if there is “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or “diversity of citizenship” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir.1998). Since federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, there is no presumption that the court has jurisdiction. Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir.1999) (citing Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U.S. 337 (1895). Accordingly, a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists, “and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” Bulldog Trucking, 147 F.3d at 352; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears ... that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”). “[T]he facts providing the court jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.” Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648, 650 (4th Cir.1988) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)). To this end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (1)requires that the complaint provide “a short plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends[.]” If, however, the complaint does not contain “an affirmative pleading of a jurisdictional basis, the federal court may find that it has jurisdiction if the facts supporting jurisdiction have been clearly pleaded.” Pinkley, Inc., 191 F.3d at 399 (citing 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 8.03[3] (3d ed.1997)). Although the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir.1999). If the court, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, finds insufficient allegations in the pleadings, the court will lack subject matter jurisdiction. Id.” By the way, you're right in one small, interesting respect: "laws of the United States" does not just refer to the U.S. Code. It also refers to federal regulations, federal common law, state-law claims bound up in the same dispute as a federal-law claim where the state-law issues do not predominate, and the very rare state law issue that raises significant federal interests. As you can see, lawyers and judges have given this phrase a lot of thought over the years. And don't forget that Art III does also allow cases under state law to be brought in federal courts when the litigants are from different states. But you remain quite wrong that Art III, and the term "laws of the United States," refers to all laws in the United States, whether state of federal, as the two cases above clearly demonstrate. If I were wrong about this, I would have done very poorly in my Federal Courts class in law school.