U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-18-2010, 10:27 AM
 
439 posts, read 156,587 times
Reputation: 155

Advertisements

According to our Constitution this case should not be in District Court. The wording in our Constitution is crystal clear:

“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.”

And, the wording in our Constitution concerning the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction becomes even clearer when reading “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States“ Act of 1789, 1 Stat. CH. 20 Supreme court, original jurisdiction (scroll to bottom of page):


"SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."

What concerns me at this point in time is prolonging the case in lower courts when we all know it will be settled in the Supreme Court, allows major portions of Obamacare to take effect. This in turn creates a situation when the case finally gets to the Supreme Court, striking Obamacare down at that time would cause major disturbances in the “economy” and hardships among the people who at that time will be tied into Obamacare.

And because of the above reasoning, I ask why have the States who have challenged Obamacare in Court as being un-constitutional not filed for an injunction to halt the implementation of Obamacare while the constitutionality of Obamacare is decided to avoid creating an irreversible situation? It seems as though there is an intentional desire to prolong the case and have major portions of Obama care in place and operating before the case is heard by the Supreme Court!

Something is just not right, especially when the Supreme Court “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is party…”

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE majority vote in Congress!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-21-2010, 12:47 PM
 
439 posts, read 156,587 times
Reputation: 155
Hamilton, in Federalist Paper No. 81 confirms this case ought to have gone directly to the supreme Court and not district court which is one of the inferior courts created by Congress:

"Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only "in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal."


So, why are the State AG’s prolonging the case and allowing major portions of Obamacare to take effect, creating an irreversible situation, before getting into the Supreme Court?

Something is not right! Are the American people being played yet again, this time by the State AGs?

And this applies to the Arizona case as well! Why is the Arizona case not in the Supreme Court? Is someone waiting for a few more million aliens to invade our borders before the case gets to the Supreme Court?

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top