dick the butcher was right
[LRC traffic please note: the tone of this post is addressed in my reply to stephan kinsella's referral.][NB: foul language]
i'm routinely blown away by the exhaustive attempts to divert from the usually damned clear language of the US constitution.
i think the constitution's tragic, but if you're going to treat it as something important, i don't need to be told what some blowhard said it says; it's right here! jeez, but i don't get this at all.
stephan kinsella, after originally botching what could have been a reasonably tidy reminder of article iii section 2, has now revised and expanded his post to include the following abomination (mostly quoting somebody else, of course):
fuck annotations; read the constitution:Article III, Section 2, clause 2's reference to cases in which `a State shall be Party' does not include suits by citizens against states. See United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 643-44 (1892) (`The words in the constitution, `in all cases . . . in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction' . . . do not refer to suits brought against a state by its own citizens or by citizens of other states, or by citizens or subjects of foreign states, even where such suits arise under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, because the judicial power of the United States does not extend to suits of individuals against states.') (emphasis added). The Eleventh Amendment provides that `The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.' U.S. Const. Amend. XI.This is why a suit by a citizen against his own State based on a claim of violation of federal constitutional rights would not be a case where a "State is Party" and original jurisdiction. So, e.g., a lawsuit challenging the pledge, or an abortion law, or a state's hetero-only marriage laws, even if the state is being sued, is a case of appellate, and not original, jurisdiction. It's not a case where a "State [is] a Party" because that language refers to paragraph 1 situations, which do not include a citizen suing his own State. Therefore jurisdiction for a citizen suing his own State can only be based on a claim "arising under" federal law or the Constitution, and thus a case of appellate jurisdiction.
For further discussion see these annotations.
3.2.2:read it: "...by Citizens of another State..."
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.
11th amendment:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
and we're treated to puffy analyses that the 11th amendment refers to citizens suing their own states. bullshit! read the fucker. tell me which clause refers to citizens suing their own states. you can't. most who take that road cling to what somebody outside the constitution said was "meant", despite the constitution specifying in pure black something else.
give it a rest, dainty liars. have the balls to refer to the object of the discussion. there is no way other than through obfuscatory fantasy that one can claim "against one of the United States by Citizens of another State" means "against one of the United States by Citizens of that State".
and there are professional lawyers out there arguing otherwise? dick the butcher was right.
Labels: constitution, derailleur
posted by saltypig @ 17:22
SaltyPig/ Charely Hardman--I think you are totally off base here (not to mention, where are your manners), as I explain in further detail here: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005988.html.
Where did I ever intimate that the 11th amendment covers suits of a citizen against his own state? Why do you hate lawyers and legal reasoning so? Surely you realize this makes you sound crankish. Why are you against acknowledging Congress' power to limit the Court's jurisdiction? I really don't get it.
I can see the layman's frustration with the difficulties of construing a complex and sometimes contradictory and unclear archaic document, but dude, that's just the way it has to be done. I may be wrong in my reasoning, if so, explain why.
where are my manners? ha! tell ya what, stephan, why not okay the publication of our entire 9/16/04 email exchange (including you flinging the eff word without provocation, and the part where you refused me permission to blog your emails) before asking me to deal in public with laughable shtick such as your definition of manners.
are you seriously pretending that you're more qualified than i am to discuss the constitution? based on what evidence? that you don't say "fuck" in public? listen to your paternalism; it's ludicrous and unjustified condescension. wake-up call: the earlier version of your 9/16/04 post was wrong. i emailed you and pointed it out nicely enough. you eff bombed me back and basically denied any problem with your post. so i replied with even more detail, and there was a big pause from you, followed by you mostly wiping out your post and trying again -- all the while pretending that you were instructing me as you asked me for feedback on your corrections! i'd just love for the traffic you sent here to see those emails.
why do i hate lawyers? i don't hate all lawyers; just most of them. my agreement with dick the butcher was, i hope, obviously hyperbolic. i'll save the explanation of why i hate most lawyers for a later post. this old article deals with it a bit, as well as pointing out that i respect good lawyers probably as much or more than most people do. to be clear, i do not consider you to be a good lawyer, nor a good person. but that can be ignored in favor of arguing the main subject. i've addressed your latest LRC post in a new post here.
Contemplating "Kingpins"
Tell the truth. If old enough to have first heard the term "drug kingpin" in 1988, when Title 28 C.F.R. 26.3 became the law of our homeland, did you ever imagine that kingpins would be elusive foreignors instead of clandestine domestics? Had you ever heard of Pablo Escobar? Importation of any illegal commodity in heavy demand enriches domestic financiers. Who are they? Try to name even one. Their return on the underlying investment must beat bank rates, yet where does it go?
Fast forward to 2005. Lawyers comprise 36% of the U.S. House and 53% of the Senate. (Why is it so difficult to find out who is a lawyer*?) We almost had two more lawyers as head of our Executive branch! Lawyers control a major political party and have stealth operatives in the other one. Don't forget...100% of the Supreme Court and the lower courts are already and ALWAYS lawyers. The U.S. electorate is not yet convinced that lawyers' access to power needs to be minimized due to conflict of interest. More on that, later...
Question of the day: *Mike Taibi is a...
a) journalist
b) lawyer
c) journalist and lawyer
d) neither
e) don't care (I 'm a Yellow-dog Democrat)
Answer will be given later.
Next Time: Pablo Escobar or Members Ofthebar?
<< Home