From: stephen@sprunk.org

On 13-May-14 21:04, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>> On 11-May-14 08:47, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>>>> Federal courts/law are superior to state courts/law; however,
>>>> federal courts only have original jurisdiction in specific
>>>> matters.  Cases usually get into federal courts via appeal from
>>>> state courts.
>>>
>>> Wrong again, Stephen; that's not how federalism works. State law
>>> and federal law are parallel systems, not inferior/superior.
>>
>> The US Constitution, and the US Civil War, disagree with you;
>> federal law/courts are superior to state law/courts.
>
> There can be overlapping jurisdiction of the two systems. But there
> is no shortage of incidents in which state courts have sole
> jurisdiction over the issue at trial, with no appeal in federal
> court. If federal law was always superior to state law as you claim,
> then any state matter would be appealable to federal court in all
> circumstances.

Yes, federal courts have limited jurisdiction; if there is no federal
controversy at stake, they can't take the case.

However, one can appeal some cases (even if not all cases) from state
courts to federal courts, state courts are obligated to honor the
rulings of federal courts, and one can never appeal from federal courts
to state courts; this clearly means that one system is superior to the
other.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
 * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)