- Aloha Bear,
I hope you don't mind me posting this here. This is an attempt to follow up on a discussion in another forum that I was ejected from for contradicting the moderator on the subject of admiralty jurisdiction.
I believe you may be aware of those posts. Please let me know if this is unacceptable.
I am unable to access the additional citations from those posts regarding 26 USC 6323 (f).
American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 US 443 - Supreme Court 1994"The Jensen decision and its progeny all rested upon the view that a strong pre-emption doctrine was necessary to vindicate the purpose of the Admiralty Clause to protect maritime commerce from the "unnecessary burdens and disadvantages incident to discordant legislation." Knickerbocker Ice Co., 253 U. S., at 164. See also Washington, 264 U. S., at 228; Jensen, 244 U. S., at 217. Whether or not this view of the Clause is accurate as a historical matter, see Castro, The Origins of Federal Admiralty Jurisdiction in an Age of Privateers, Smugglers and Pirates, 37 Am. J. Legal Hist. 117, 154 (1993) (original purpose of Clause was to ensure federal jurisdiction over prize, criminal, and revenue cases; private maritime disputes were viewed as matters for state courts), protection of maritime commerce has been a central theme in our admiralty jurisprudence. While I do not propose that we abandon commerce as a guiding concern, we should recognize that, today, the federal interests in free trade and uniformity are amply protected by other means. Most importantly, we now recognize Congress' broad authority under the Commerce Clause to supplant state law with uniform federal statutes. Moreover, state laws that affect 462*462 maritime commerce, interstate and foreign, are subject to judicial scrutiny under the Commerce Clause. And to the extent that the mere assertion of state judicial power may threaten maritime commerce, the Due Process Clause provides an important measure of protection for out-of-state defendants, especially foreigners. See Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U. S. 102 (1987); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U. S. 408 (1984). Extension of the ill-advised doctrine of Jensen is not the appropriate remedy for unreasonable state venue rules."
Attached is a one page of a law review I found in relation to this issue. It is from:
"Whittier Law School has two scholarly publications: the Whittier Law Review and the Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy.
According to a ranking conducted by the Washington & Lee Law School, the Whittier Law Review is ranked 109th out of 192 law reviews evaluated. According to a ranking of law reviews on the basis of the prominence of the lead article authors, conducted in 2007 by two professors at the Shepard Broad Law Center, the Whittier Law Review was ranked 121st out of 171 law reviews evaluated. The Law Review is a student-run organization publishing a collection of articles of legal scholarship four times annually. The Law Review is currently in its twenty-ninth year of publication."
Still looking for additional confirmations... but the previous attachment is pretty clear... how to fix it