Article III, Section 2 gives Congress the power to change the jurisdiction of the courts by legislation. You know, the part you keep overlooking, as was pointed out to you earlier.
As was also pointed out to you, Congress exercised this authority within a few years after the ratification of the Constitution, when they were establishing the lower courts.
You think this has been going on for over 220 years, and you're the first person smart enough to see a flaw here? No, everything is legitimate, and within proper Constitutional bounds, and has been that way for over two centuries.
Right. Now you're getting it. The Constitution DOES NOT include the word exclusive when assigning jurisdiction. It prescribes original jurisdiction, not exclusive jurisdiction.
"In other words you are arguing the Constitution can changed simply by act of Congress instead of the procedures to change the Constitution detailed in Article V via the amendment process. "
No one has "changed" the Constitution. Just because you keep repeating it, won't make that any less true.
"It's not me saying how it should work. It is what the Constitution states."
No. It's what you misinterpret the Constitution stating.
The Constitution gives to the Legislature the specific authority to establish regulations of the court(s). Assigning concurrent jurisdiction for lower trial courts is well-within the Legislature's authority, especially considering that the Constitution - as you have so eloquently stated - does not demand exclusive jurisdiction for these cases, but original jurisdiction instead.
IMHO, you are either 1) a troll; 2) completely closed-minded to listening to another's point; or 3) just plain stubborn to a fault.
"Original" does not mean "Exclusive". You're the one that claimed the Constitution states "exclusive" by how YOU interpret "original". Your definition of "original" is incorrect as illustrated by over 220 years of jurisprudence. This has been painstakingly explained to you multiple times now. Sheesh.