• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT....

Texan

Well-known member
...FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity,
Defendants.
.
.
.
.
.
On July 6, 2010, the United States filed a Complaint with this Court challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 1070, and it also filed a Motion requesting that the Court issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070 until the Court can make a final determination as to its constitutionality.


==========================

U.S. Constitution Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction"

===========================

If the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, why was it filed in District Court?
 

Mike

Well-known member
According to Liberals, the Constitution is a "Living" document and doesn't really read the way it was intended.

I believe I heard that the case will go to the Appeals Court which is located in the California District? We all know how liberal the judges there are.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
U.S. Constitution Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

Quote:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction"




Okay, could someone please explain how the governor is considered an ambassador, public minister or consul?? These are all terms used for foreign officials in international law......

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-407.htm
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m113.htm
 

Mike

Well-known member
Okay, could someone please explain how the governor is considered an ambassador, public minister or consul??

She is neither of those. But her State is a party in the case.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction"
 

MoGal

Well-known member
aaahhh,,, I just now see

those in which a State shall be Party,


I'm telling ya, the supreme court should not have the right to usurp a state's sovereign laws.



(edited to add) Thank you Mike.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I'm telling ya, the supreme court should not have the right to usurp a state's sovereign laws.

It can and has before, but only if it contradicts a "Federal" law that has good standing. In this case, ithe State Law does generally coincide and extends no further rights, nor takes any away, than the "Federal" law.

Go figure.
 
Top