Reply – US Constitution and Jurisdiction
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
US Constitution and Jurisdiction
— by iamsomedude iamsomedude
Article III

Section 2

1: 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;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

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, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.




So, if I am not mistaken, Article III Section 2 paragraph 2 reads like that if the STATE OF comes with claim in a county/state court, then the proper action would be put in a motion to dismiss based upon lack of jurisdiction because the supreme Court has ORIGINAL jurisdiction.

It also appears that ANY question of a Constitutional Nature (ie: What Thing is being demanded for payment?) belongs in one of the United States District Courts, which incidentally is where one compels an "employee of the United States" (ie: Attorney or other Public Official via Oath of Office) to perform.  

It also appears that if one stand on their Faith with Christ, one should be able to also present the lack of jurisdiction because the supreme Court has ORIGINAL jurisdiction in all matters concerning "Ambassadors" and who would the supreme court, or anyone, be to LIMIT the freedom of religion and the exercise thereof?

So, it appears the Constitution outlines the jurisdictional issue very well.

What say you all??
~ Boris

We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.

If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.