“Jurisdiction” is often used as a synonym for “case law.” A major part of the function of the courts of the United States is to “enforce” federal laws with respect to state law; to interpret and apply statutory laws; and to decide on disputes between two states, or among multiple states. In short, it is necessary for the courts to decide cases according to interpreting the Constitution and the statutory law, rather than according to the views of any particular circuit or court.
The statutory definition of jurisdiction in the United States: has been changed several times since the 1791 Constitutional Convention. One reason for this was the need to allow federal courts the prerogative of deciding important cases beyond the scope of their power under the Constitution. For example, the Supreme Court has been interpreted to warrant unlimited deference to state court decisions in cases involving interstate commerce. States have been urged to give their sovereign citizens the right to take cases to federal court when the state court fails to exercise its sovereign authority over the matter. The same argument can be advanced to excuse the inability of lower Federal courts to review some acts of Congress. This is not an argument which should be allowed to stand.
In fact, this argument has some rather odious implications: It would seem to suggest that lower Federal Courts are permitted to make decisions that the Supreme Court may deem proper only if they believe such a decision is essential to the functioning of our system of checks and balances. As if our national discussion about the separation of powers is not enough, this new argument suggests that lower Federal Courts may even be permitted to order Congress’s agencies to produce records of the proceedings in an effort to circumvent the very checks and balances the Constitution was designed to prevent. Will the Supreme Court agree to such a ridiculous proposition? It seems to me that the answer will be a resounding no.
The second argument, which is the more sensible one: and the one most likely to lead to agreement between the Supreme Court and lower Federal Courts, is the one which best defines the meaning of jurisdiction. If we are to use this definition in discussing whether or not Congress can order enforcement of a criminal law within a State, we must take into account the nature of that law. A law which has the power to command compliance by any State with a federal act is subject to the limitation imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A law which Congress cannot order enforced within a State is not necessarily a law which is beyond the power of Congress. That is not a very difficult concept to grasp, and it is not necessary to wait for the Supreme Court to decide whether or not it is consistent with our constitutional structure.
The fourth argument which is often advanced in support of a reading: which would render the question which best defines the term “jurisdiction” ambiguous is the one which maintains that the phrase “jurisdiction” is simply another word for “ownership.” The argument goes on to suggest that persons owning real estate do not have jurisdiction over the property, even if they could, since they are merely exercising “ownership” of the property. Again, this is an incorrect reading of the statutory language. The word “ownership” is used not to describe the ownership of property, but to describe the exercise of dominion over that property.
The fifth argument – which is often advanced in support of a reading which would render the question which best defines the term “jurisdiction” ambiguous is the one which suggests that the phrase “jurisdiction” is nothing more than an obscure reference to “powers.” This is again an incorrect reading of the statutory language. The word “jurisdiction” is defined in the Constitution as a power conferred upon the courts.
It is a power which is conferred upon the courts exclusively. It is not a power which can be waived, transferred, or delegated to some other entity.
