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.
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." - US Const. Art. III, Sec. 1. (emphasis added).
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution. . ." US Const. Art. III, Sec. 1. (emphasis added)
There you have it - the judicial power extends to each and every Constitutional case and the bodies authorized to wield that judicial power are the Supreme Courts and, when created by Congress, Article III courts (Circuit and District). This could not be more clear. Don't tell me to "go educate myself" when you are so woefully misinformed.
Hmmm...who to believe? The U.S. Constitution or Dbones?
The Judiciary is the next target of president Helsinki Quisling?
When the DEM president, FDR, didn't like the way the Supreme Court decided on his polices he tried to ram through, he tried to add additional judges in order to get a majority if favor of his ways.
When dems can't win, they try to change the rules.
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." - US Const. Art. III, Sec. 1. (emphasis added).
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution. . ." US Const. Art. III, Sec. 1. (emphasis added)
There you have it - the judicial power extends to each and every Constitutional case and the bodies authorized to wield that judicial power are the Supreme Courts and, when created by Congress, Article III courts (Circuit and District). This could not be more clear. Don't tell me to "go educate myself" when you are so woefully misinformed.
you're wrong. It was setup like this so SCOTUS isn't bogged down with citizen complaints that a state is violating their Constitutional rights. They weren't setup to decide national policy. Why do you think each district handles certain states? Think about it, why is that the case? It's that way so INDIVIDUALS have a place to address their grievances. Circuit courts are TRIAL and APPELATE courts.
Be careful what you wish for. If this happens and the next President is a Dem, what would keep him for issuing an executive order that Repubs don't like and cannot stop! Think about it.
You have no clue either. Believe what you want. This is LONG overdue.
Be careful what you wish for. Removing the checks and balances in the Constitution to further empower the executive branch to favor your president today is extremely short-sighted. There will be a Democrat in the White House again and all of these powers you are handing over to Trump will be there for them to take advantage of as well. And I guarantee you won't like it then.
Be careful what you wish for. If this happens and the next President is a Dem, what would keep him for issuing an executive order that Repubs don't like and cannot stop! Think about it.
We posted at the same time. Needless to say, I agree with you.
you're wrong. It was setup like this so SCOTUS isn't bogged down with citizen complaints that a state is violating their Constitutional rights. They weren't setup to decide national policy. Why do you think each district handles certain states? Think about it, why is that the case? It's that way so INDIVIDUALS have a place to address their grievances.
District Courts were set up in every State to give aggrieved individuals proximate access to those Courts. It would hardly make sense that the Founding Fathers would establish one Supreme Court in Philadelphia to handle all Federal Constitutional claims in the horse-and-buggy era to adjudicate claims brought by individuals living in (for example) Maine. If the reason for District Courts was not to provide proximate access, but rather just to adjudicate State-based Constitutional violations, we would not have multiple District Courts in many of our States.
But none of your speculation matters anyway, because the Constitution is 100% clear on this point - "judicial power" means the power to decide claims arising out of the Constitution and both the Supreme Court and all of the lower Article III Courts are expressly entrusted with that judicial power. Had the Founding Fathers intended for Article III Courts to limit their jurisdiction to State-created (rather than Federally-created) violations of the Constitution, they surely would have said so instead of saying "all" violations of the Constitution.
In fact, your premise makes no sense because the 14th Amendment (requiring that States themselves not violate citizens' Constitutional rights by way of the Privileges and Immunities Clause) did not even exist until 1868. So why would the Founding Fathers in 1789 expect that lower Courts would limit their Constitutional inquiries to Constitutional violations by the State when the 14th Amendment wasn't passed until 99 year later?
If it's determined that rejecting asylum seekers breaks some existing US law, then, yes.
i don't believe that was ever determined.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
