Section 2. "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The powers all concern controversies between the Federal government and other entities, controversies between citizens of different states, or between citizens with land claims that involve other state governments. Nowhere does it simply say "in all matters arising between citizens of the same state," or anything to that effect. And remember our Constitution grants powers to the Federal government that are "few and defined." No extras, no assumptions, no penumbras, no gimmes.
All of the post-1947 decisions I cited concerned matters between citizens of the same state. That's what made those decisions without precedent in the first 160 years of the Constitution's existence. The Court didn't go there because the USC doesn't empower them to, and the other branches were watching. I am not the first to point this out, by any means.
Read more carefully. Read Mark Levin or somebody. You don't understand the difference between Federal government and the sovereign states that created it, and what has changed in their relationship since the Progressives were unleashed in the 20th century. But take heart, you're never too old to learn.
Best regards, over and out.
Ahhh NO, those are in addition to the matters concerning the Constitution.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...
Not "some" cases but instead "ALL" cases arising under the Constitution.
Which again shows you you are wrong.
The qualifiers listed further down in the list are in addition to that statement. The reason being is a State court would have a biased interest determining a case that was between that State and a citizen of another State. And in other examples from the rest of the qualifiers plainly the States would have no right to speak for the USA when dealing with people of a foreign state.
But you keep trying Sparky you may actually get one right by accident once. (but I seriously doubt it.)