Imágenes de páginas

Appointments.—Where the President makes an appointment to hold till the end of the next session, and then after the session, appoints the same officer to hold during pleasure, it is a new appointment requiring a new bond, and the sureties on the first bond are not liable for acts done under the second commission. United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat., 720.


SECTION 3. “He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States."

Shall commission all the officers of the United States.”_When a commission has been signed the appointment is made; and the commission is complete when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the Secretary of State. Where the officer is removable at the will of the President, the circumstance which completes his appointment is of no concern, because the act is at any time revocable. But where the officer is not removable at the will of the Executive, the appointment is not revocable and can not be annulled. This was held, but as the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction to compel the Secretary of State to deliver the commission, the rule to show cause why mandamus should not issue was discharged. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137.


SECTION 4. “The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."



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 estabish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, 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 the 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 sub


Changed by amendment.—This was changed by the eleventh Amendment, which reads: "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State or citizens or subjects of a foreign State."

"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.” See post, p. 321.

The 12th section of the Interstate Commerce Act, authorizing the Circuit Court of the United States to use their process to compel attendance of witnesses before the Interstate Commerce Commission does not conflict with the Federal Constitution by imposing on such courts duties not judicial in their nature. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S., 447.



"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."

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.-The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of purely political questions, of those not involving rights of persons or property, such as a bill to abolish an existing State government, or to restrain the executive or the Secretary of War from carrying into effect acts of Congress which would work such abolition. Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall., 50. Nor, of a bill to enjoin the President in the execution of his duties. Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall., 475.

Congress may prescribe the process or mode of proceeding where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction; but the jurisdiction of the court does not depend on such Congressional action; and the court may, if occasion require, make its own rules. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall., 419; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How., 98; New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet., 284.

But the court must keep within the limits of its jurisdiction; its acts beyond are void. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet., 657. .

Its original jurisdiction embraces actions at law and suits in equity. Wheeling Bridge Case, 13 How., 518.

Congress can not enlarge its original jurisdiction. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet., 284; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet., 637; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat., 264.

States can not restrict Federal jurisdistion. An agreement to abstain from resorting to the United States courts is against public policy and a statute requiring such agreement void; but the State may impose as a condition to do business in the State, that a corporation shall not remove a case into the Federal courts, and may revoke its license where such removal is made. Doyle v. Ins. Co., 94 U. S., 535; following and explaining, Ins. Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall., 44.

State law requiring a corporation to stipulate not to remove causes is void, because it requires the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S., 186.

« AnteriorContinuar »