So how did the court assume the power of judicial review without a legislative statute? Seems awfully convenient that the court can assume powers on a whim but when it comes to fulfilling it's constitutional obligations and protecting the rights of the People, suddenly there's strict procedures and stipulations that must be met, which the Constitution makes no mention or implication of. There's a profound difference between interpreting the Constitution and making it up as it pleases the court. This interpretation implies that when the first Federal Courts were created by the Constitution, the courts had absolutely no jurisdiction over anything whatsoever because the Congress established under the US Constitution had not yet convened and passed legislation under the authority of the United States Constitution, which also implies that the entirety of Article VI is a complete nullity without any meaningful purpose. We the People gave the Judiciary life, power, and purpose, not Congress.
I'd love to see the next video, but cant find it. It certainly *seems* that 1331 gives Fed Distrirct Courts jurisdiction over all (or almost all) Constitutional or USC federal law issues, but it seems that Mottley very much limits the scope of Fed District Court jurisdiction. .... I did find discussion of Mottley in the 2nd half of the 2 week review. ruclips.net/video/f8apDN5rP00/видео.html
I think you could help your students understand better if you livened this up a bit. Sure, this isn't the most fun area of study, but your voice is monotone, slow, and putting me to sleep. Also, examples, examples, examples! It's hard for students, or anyone, to fully grasp abstract concepts without concrete application. Just a suggestion, of course...
So how did the court assume the power of judicial review without a legislative statute? Seems awfully convenient that the court can assume powers on a whim but when it comes to fulfilling it's constitutional obligations and protecting the rights of the People, suddenly there's strict procedures and stipulations that must be met, which the Constitution makes no mention or implication of. There's a profound difference between interpreting the Constitution and making it up as it pleases the court. This interpretation implies that when the first Federal Courts were created by the Constitution, the courts had absolutely no jurisdiction over anything whatsoever because the Congress established under the US Constitution had not yet convened and passed legislation under the authority of the United States Constitution, which also implies that the entirety of Article VI is a complete nullity without any meaningful purpose. We the People gave the Judiciary life, power, and purpose, not Congress.
I'd love to see the next video, but cant find it. It certainly *seems* that 1331 gives Fed Distrirct Courts jurisdiction over all (or almost all) Constitutional or USC federal law issues, but it seems that Mottley very much limits the scope of Fed District Court jurisdiction. .... I did find discussion of Mottley in the 2nd half of the 2 week review. ruclips.net/video/f8apDN5rP00/видео.html
I think you could help your students understand better if you livened this up a bit. Sure, this isn't the most fun area of study, but your voice is monotone, slow, and putting me to sleep. Also, examples, examples, examples! It's hard for students, or anyone, to fully grasp abstract concepts without concrete application. Just a suggestion, of course...