From: ahk@chinet.com

Stephen Sprunk  wrote:
>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.

I said that like 12 followups back.

>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.

With regard to the FEDERAL issue only; the trial court goes on to
reconsider issues of state law with respect to the federal ruling. It's
not like the trial moves to federal court.

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