Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« A gross example of litigation "churning" aka barratry | Main | Right in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): "Other constitutional and legislative courts of the United States" »

US Supreme Court Tipping Their Hand: Congressional intent to transfer jurisdiction from constitutional to legislative courts, to emasculate the former

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 11:06 PM
subject: S.Ct. Tipping Their Hand: Congressional intent to transfer jurisdiction from constitutional to legislative courts, to emasculate the former
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com Filter messages from this mailing list
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=337&invol=582

NATIONAL MUT. INS. CO. OF DIST. OF COL. V. TIDEWATER TRANSFER CO. , 337 U.S. 582 (1949)

[begin quote]

It may be argued that the distinction between constitutional and legislative courts is meaningless if the latter may be invested with jurisdiction over the subjects of Art. III judicial power.

But there are limitations which insure the preservation of the system of federal constitutional courts distinct from legislative courts.

In the first place, a legislative court must be established under some one of the specific powers given to Congress, and it is unlikely that all of the subjects of the judicial power could be justified as an exercise of those powers. 22

Furthermore, we cannot impute to Congress an intent now or in the future to transfer jurisdiction from constitutional to legislative courts for the purpose of emasculating the former.

Chief Justice Marshall suggested another limitation in the Canter case, when he said that within the States, admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised solely by constitutional courts, although that limitation does not apply to the Territories.

It is at least open to question, therefore, whether all of the subjects of Art. III judicial power, or only federal question jurisdiction, may be transferred to legislative courts within the States.

Finally, Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, has been read as suggesting that the jurisdiction of legislative courts is limited to matters which, while proper subjects of judicial determination, need not be so determined under the Constitution. 23

The least that may be said is that no decisions of this Court have suggested that legislative courts may take over the entire field of federal judicial authority.


[end quote]

March 10, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink