Posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 30, 1998 at 17:30:14:
In Reply to: CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS, from "Encyclopedia of the American Constitution" posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 29, 1998 at 15:39:19:
Dear Dan Meador et al.,
Okay, if you have stayed with me thus far in this
preliminary analysis, here is a clear demonstration
of the legal consequence of NOT repealing section
248 in the Act of March 3, 1911 (see Schedule of
Laws Repealed by the Act of June 25, 1948,
62 Stat. 996).
Section 248 of the Act of March 3, 1911, reads
as follows (my ellipsis "..." for extraneous text):
Sec. 248. The Supreme Court of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm
the final judgments and decrees of the supreme court of
the Philippine Islands ... and such final judgments or
decrees may and can be reviewed, revised, reversed,
modified, or affirmed by said Supreme Court on appeal
or writ of error by the party aggrieved, within the same time,
in the same manner, under the same regulations, and by the
same procedure, as far as applicable, as the final judgments
and decrees of the district courts of the United States.
.....................==================================== [emphasis added]
In other words, all civil and criminal cases appealed
from the supreme court of the Philippine Islands,
to the Supreme Court of the United States,
were to be controlled by the manner, regulations
and procedures of the DCUS! If the latter court
did NOT exist at any time AFTER June 25, 1948, then
this statute would have been rendered totally meaningless.
Then, we can show, even if this section was later
repealed, for one reason or another, it could never
have abolished the DCUS, because repeals by implication
are simply not favored; therefore, how much less favored
(read "prohibited") is court abolition by implication!
We have also proven, hereby, that the rules of civil
and criminal procedure in the DCUS are the subject matters
of laws which have never been expressly repealed either.
That is another way of saying that the DCUS was
never abolished, certainly not by treating the
several states as "Territories" subject to the
Territory Clause at 4:3:2.
I think we finally have here the hard empirical
evidence I have been seeking, to confirm the
continued existence of the DCUS.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Counselor at Law, Federal Witness,
and Private Attorney General
Post a Followup