posted
I was just trying to throw out an obvious challenge to the idea that 1st amendment rights are currently absolute. Whether they should be, is, of course, a separate debate.
edit: not to say that the ensuing argument isn't both fun and useful... just that my intent was to say that, as Morbo put it, even the first amendment has limits.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This was an action under state law, not federal (even though it was in federal court).
Thats an interesting tidbit to learn for today. What is the background (historical or otherwise) for having federal courts interpret state law (or vice versa)? Is that the same in Canada?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I was just trying to throw out an obvious challenge to the idea that 1st amendment rights are currently absolute. Whether they should be, is, of course, a separate debate.
edit: not to say that the ensuing argument isn't both fun and useful... just that my intent was to say that, as Morbo put it, even the first amendment has limits.
Oh, certainly! You know me, though. I ponder. Usually out loud...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
It is legal for people, protesting a soldier who died in the war to protest a few hundred feet from the burial as long as its on public property, but it is mandatory that people protesting the politcians who started or mishandled the war, make their protests thousands and thousands (several blocks) away from the Politicians they are protesting.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is the background (historical or otherwise) for having federal courts interpret state law (or vice versa)?
The federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. To qualify for federal jurisdiction, a case must either involve a "federal question" (that is, one of the claims must be grounded in federal law or one of several special exceptions in the Constitution) or qualify for "diversity jurisdiction." To qualify for diversity jurisdiction, all the parties must be from different states and the amount in controversy must be at least 75,000 (an amount that can be set by Congress).*
The underlying reason for the diversity clause in the Constitution is that it was expected that states would discriminate in their own citizens favor. Diversity jurisdiction provides for a more neutral court.
Until 1938, filing a case in federal court meant that a "federal common law" would be used. The Supreme Court decided in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins that the law of the state in which the federal court sits would be used instead.
Note that the "law of the state" can result in different state law being used. Most states have law concerning choice of law that means certain aspects of a case will be decided under the laws of another state. So, if X (citizen of Maryland) signs a contract with Y (citizen of Virginia) in New York and later sues Y in Virginia for breach of contract in a federal court, the federal court will apply Virginia's choice of law rules to determine that New York's law concerning the formation of a contract should be applied to the case.
If X sued Y in Virginia state court, the state court would apply its own choice of law rules to determine that New York's law concerning the formation of a contract should be applied to the case.
In practice, this means that almost all state and federal trial courts frequently hear cases involving other states' laws.
*This is covered in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution:
quote: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.
This doesn't explicitly contain the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. Congress's power to establish such a limit has been inferred from its power to establish the lesser courts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
