Talk:Article Three of the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Garbled text?

Section Jurisdiction, end of second to last paragraph: He continued, however, that under the Judiciary Act 1789 was unconstitutional, as it purported to grant original jurisdiction [etc.] seems garbled, but it's not obvious to me what the correction should be. The Judiciary Act was unconstitutional? --PRiis 21:06, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Congressional power to expand The Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction

If 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, then the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction over all cases whenever the Congress may from time to time set the number of inferior courts to zero. Congress may, not shall, ordain and establish inferior courts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.237.66 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Interesting point!  :-) Captain Quirk (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Section on Tenure Is Spectacularly Wrong

The present text wrongly asserts that "The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily." The Framers' apparent intention was that judges forfeit their sinecures when they abuse their offices; in Britain, anyone could remove an official with lifetime tenure (including a wide array of public officials; English judges were only added to that list in Act of Settlement 1701), subject to that condition via a writ of scire facias. Moreover, as the Court has never tackled the question squarely, there is no definitive modern interpretation of that clause. There are some superb law review articles on this topic, which provide a comprehensive view.

I'll try to update this when I find the time; doing a proper job takes a lot of time. If anyone has an interest in kibbutzing, leave me a message on my talk page. Bouldergeist (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

While it might be interesting to see what article writers have proposed, I know of no instance of an Article III judge being removed from office involuntarily other than impeachment in the House of Representatives followed by removal in the Senate. There are specifically several instances in which judges have been convicted of crimes related to abuse of their office and put in jail, and have been suspended from hearing cases by the chief judge of their district, but have continued to hold the title and receive pay until action was taken by Congress. As a practical matter, therefore, Article III judges holds office as long as they like, and no matter what they've done, until Congres completes the impeachment and removal process. bd2412 T 18:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Oy! Cunctator... the resolution was that primary texts shall NOT be placed into the wikipedia in full unless a way was developed to keep them from being accidentally modified and still presented as the original. That means no Shakespeare, no complete texts of ANYTHING, and no US Constitution. Do you really want some vandal to come along and change the constitution to say whatever they want it to say? There's a link to the full version of the text and that's enough. KJ 23:15 Aug 10, 2002 (PDT)

How do we contribute to the grading? Because in my opinion this page should get a D, not a B. What is the 3rd sentence (" }Section 1: Federal courts istrict of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through Federal Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. ") supposed to mean? No wonder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge doesn't link to this article when it refers to "article III judges." Darr247 (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

3/3/15 assembling of men ?

In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Article Three of the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705093556/http://38.113.83.199/Students/academics/journals/law-review/Issues/archives/upload/Stef.pdf to http://38.113.83.199/Students/academics/journals/law-review/Issues/archives/upload/Stef.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)