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)