john w k wrote:
john w k wrote:
JWK, FOUNDER, ACRS:
You're the only one who lives in the make-believe world where the court does not have jurisdiction. The rest of have to deal with reality.
But Debra dear, I do recall you correctly saying :
The city council has absolutely no "federal claim" against the state that it could possibly bring in a federal court and appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
. . .
It would be helpful if you would actually read what is posted and try to understand the context.
But Debra my dear,
The context in which you responded to Brandon is really not the issue now, is it?
Let's see. What is the issue? What is the context?
You responded to my post responding to Brandon's post wherein you claimed that my response to Brandon was wrong--that the Supreme Court could not possibly have exercised judicial restraint in determining the Kelo case because the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place and that by acting in complete absence of jurisdiction, it was actually engaging in activism rather than restraint.
Where did that lead us?
Oh yes . . .
I responded that you're the only one in the entire world that believes that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment to hear the Kelo case . . . the rest of us live in the real world and apply the real law.
Next, in an absurd attempt to bolster your erroneous belief that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case, you pointed out that I told Foxfyre that Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to hear her hypothetical city council case.
Even a moron should be able to understand that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in some cases; but not in all cases. It is elementary knowledge that the Supreme Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction in the Kelo case because the case arose under the Fifth Amendment applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court does NOT have jurisdiction to hear a case or controversy between a city council and its state if the city council would seek to expand its eminent domain powers in contravention of state laws.
Let me give you another example:
The Eight Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall deprive ANY PERSON of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Hypothetical: Convicted murderer lives in the (fictitious) city of Revenge in the State of Florida. Convicted murderer is sentenced to DEATH. Convicted murderer appeals his sentence all the way to the Supreme Court. He alleges that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment applicable to the STATE of FLORIDA via the Fourteenth Amendment.
Convicted murderer has stated a federal claim--an actual case or controversy--arising under the Constitution of the United States. Whether you believe it so or NOT, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.
The Supreme Court rules that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment (applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment). However, the Supreme Court notes that the protections afforded to individuals under the Eighth Amendment is the base--and that the people may decide for themselves through the democratic processes in their respective states whether they will impose the death penalty upon convicted murderers.
All of a sudden, the majority of the people in the State of Florida become opposed to the death penalty and they abolish the death penalty and provide that the maximum penalty for murder is life in prison without the possibility of parole.
However, the people who live in the City of REVENGE, Florida, are angry. They want convicted murderer put to death. The City of REVENGE then files a lawsuit in federal court against the STATE of FLORIDA seeking to reinstate the death penalty in the STATE.
RESULT: The federal court dismisses the City's lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The City has no federal claim--no right protected by the Constitution--that it can invoke against its creator, the State.
LESSON: The individual--convicted murderer--stated a case or controvery arising under the Constitution and the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear his challenge to the death penalty. The City of REVENGE did NOT state a case or controversy arising under the Constitution and the federal court did NOT have jurisdiction to hear its case.
Pretty simple concept.
Accordingly, your reference to a situation where there is no federal question jurisdiction with respect to the "city council" question posed by Foxfyre does NOT bolster your ridiculous allegation that their is no federal question jurisdiction in the Kelo.
The United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction is some cases, but not in all cases.
Just because the Supreme Court would have absolutely no jurisdiction to hear a case with respect to a city council's desire to expand its eminent domain powers in contravention of state law (discussed within the context addressing the question posed by Foxfyre), that does not mean the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction to hear a case brought by a property owner claiming a violation of the takings clause.
Your attempt at bolstering your erroneous position was so lame, I can't believe that you found that it had any merit within the context.
Your conclusion that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Kelo case is not based on fact or law.
According, your next conclusion that the Supreme Court engaged in activism rather than restraint when it decided in favor of the State in the absense of jurisdiction is EQUALLY ERRONEOUS.
A false conclusion built upon a false conclusion doesn't bolster your refuted argument one iota.
I don't expect that you will learn anything from this discussion, but maybe someone else will and that's the only reason why I would continue to address your outrageously erroneous beliefs.