The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: I would LOVE to be wrong about this ...
I would LOVE to be wrong about this ...
... and if I am, then BE SPECIFIC.
As I read 706, it looks like if anything, it says the OPPOSITE of what Carl Miller claims. It says a judge DECIDES jurisdiction, not that he loses it.
"... the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—
"(2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
"(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;"
See? It says the COURT is the one to throw out an AGENCY ruling if the agency has overstepped its bounds regarding jurisdiction.
It just does not say what Carl Miller claims it does.
I REALLY wish Carl was right about this; but, he is not.
Replies to this comment: