Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2  

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,—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.

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.

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.




Article III Section 2, 2nd cl. Appellate Jurisdiction

Statutory Jurisdiction Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The “supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Article III section 2. “Detention” presents an Article III case and controversy.

Even in Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371(1880), which held that the constitutionality of a prisoner’s statute of conviction could be reviewed on habeas (as going to jurisdiction) , . . the Court acknowledged Watkins and took pains to reconcile its holding with the traditional rule. See 100 U. S., at 375–377 Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 485 (2023) Justice Thomas.

“The appellate jurisdiction of this court, exercisable by the writ of habeas corpus, extends to a case of imprisonment upon conviction and sentence of a party by an inferior court of the United States, under and by virtue of an unconstitutional act of Congress.” Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 371 (1879) “That this court is authorized to exercise appellate jurisdiction by habeas corpus directly is a position sustained by abundant authority.” 100 U.S. at 374.

“Such a petition is commonly understood to be "original" in the sense of being filed in the first instance in this Court, but none the less for constitutional purposes an exercise of this Court's appellate (rather than original) jurisdiction.” Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 667 (1996) “It seems to be a necessary consequence that if the appellate jurisdiction of habeas corpus extends to any case, it extends to this.” Ex Parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 8  Wall. 85 85, 102 (1868). “[D]eciding upon questions of personal rights which can only be attained through appellate jurisdiction” 75 U.S. at 103. That “in a proper case this Court, under the act of 1789, and under all the subsequent acts, giving jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus may, in the exercise of its appellate power, revise the decisions of inferior courts of the United States and relieve from unlawful imprisonment authorized by them . . .75 98




Chairman Graham & Justice Barrett Conversation 

Criminal Laws

Justice Barrett Day 3 of SCOTUS Confirmation hearing

23:20- 24:10

Why are marijuana laws a political question?


The operation and effect of criminal laws is the seizure of person and deprivation of liberty. 


Why are marijuana laws not an Article III case and controversy?


Deprivation of rights under the color of law. 18 USC 242



Justice Barret is wrong that you have to be prosecuted to challenge the constitutionality of a criminal law. Declaratory Judment conflicts with her belief.


Lawyers have never defended medical providers constitutional right to liberty, freedom from the enforcement of unreasonable criminal laws. Why?


''It is only where rights ….are being, or about to be, affected prejudicially by the application or enforcement of a statute that its validity may be called in question by a suitor and determined by an exertion of the judicial power. State of Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U.S. 158, 162(1922).


A plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute's operation or enforcement. Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) > O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974).



The very foundation of the power of the federal courts to declare Acts of Congress unconstitutional lies in the power and duty of those courts to decide cases and controversies properly before them United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 20  (1960).


The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined and limited by Article III of the Constitution. ….the judicial power of federal courts is constitutionally restricted to "cases" and "controversies." Flast v. Cohen 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968) >  Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth,  >300 U.S. 227 , 239, 240(1937); 2 Dall. 419, 431, 432;  >Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 356 , 357 (1911) 


[The] case and controversy limitation, …[is an ]…American institution of judicial review……for the preservation of individual rightsRescue Army v. Municipal Court 331 U.S. 549 , 572 (1947).  ''The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, …...'' Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 170 (1803).


Upon the state courts, equally with the courts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States, whenever those rights are involved in any suit or proceeding before them, for the judges of the state courts are required to take an oath to support that Constitution. They are bound by it, … as the supreme law of the land. Mr. Justice Harlan in Robb v. Connolly 111 U.S. 624, 637(1884);


[S]tate courts also have the solemn responsibility " to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States . . .," . "We yet like to believe that wherever the Federal courts sit, human rights under the Federal Constitution are always a proper subject for adjudication, and that we have not the right to decline the exercise of that jurisdiction ….." Zwickler v. Koota,  389 U.S. 241, 248   (1967).


''It is only where rights, ….are being, or about to be, affected prejudicially by the application or enforcement of a statute that its validity may be called in question by a suitor and determined by an exertion of the judicial power. State of Texas v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 258 U.S. 158 162 1922)


The Art. III judicial power exists only to redress or otherwise to protect against injury to the complaining party, even though the court's judgment may benefit others collaterally. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499  (1975)  


We have no power per se to review and annul acts of Congress on the ground that they are unconstitutional. That question may be considered only when the justification for some direct injury suffered or threatened, presenting a justiciable issue, is made to rest upon such an act.  Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon 262 U.S. 447, 488, (1923)



"If, therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, ……or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the constitution." Mugler v. Kansas, (1887)123 U.S. 623, 661


The Court noted that "constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.." Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 647 (1961) > Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635(1886).


Un Reasonable Seize Marijuana-------------- Our Rights Their Betrayal
Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal