of the Nation’s laws.” Geaneas v. Willets, 911 F.2d 579, 584 (11th Cir.1990). CONCLUSION Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Under our Constitutional separation of powers framework, it is essential that all three branches of government strictly observe the limitations on their proper dominion. Thus, out of respect for their limited role within our government, federal courts have long refused to issue advisory opinions. Additionally, we have repeatedly held that moot cases fail to meet the important requirement that courts only address active cases or controversies. In this case, the City of Miami’s amendments to the its zoning code effectively rendered moot National’s claims as to the constitutionality of the prior version of the Ct. 1709, 1715, 52 L.Ed.2d 184 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Diffenderfer v. Cent. Baptist Church, 404
holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations holding that an overbreadth challenge to a child pornography law was rendered moot by amendment to the statute holding moot a constitutional challenge to a state statute governing the involuntary commitment of mentally ill minors because the law had been replaced with a different statute holding moot a challenge to a florida tax exemption for church property when the law had been repealed