[The Pack Knight]

There is a difference between original jurisdiction and exclusive original jurisdiction. The Constitution does not grant exclusive original jurisdiction over state-part cases to the Supreme Court. Its original jurisdicition is concurrent with other courts.

[veracious]

> There is a difference between original jurisdiction and > exclusive original jurisdiction. The Constitution does
> not grant exclusive original jurisdiction over state-part
> cases to the Supreme Court. Its original jurisdiction is
> concurrent with other courts.

This is a legal precedence or a scholar commentary? I’m able to read USConstitution; I’m able to read law; where does the law say what the above comment claims.

Precedence and scholars are the establishment, the box we’ve been forced into. We need to reconsider our captivity and the false concepts which lead to destruction.

[Svartalfiar]

There is a difference between original jurisdiction and exclusive original jurisdiction. The Constitution does not grant exclusive original jurisdiction over state-part cases to the Supreme Court. Its original jurisdicition is concurrent with other courts.

There is? So if only one court is given original jurisdiction, but any other court can hear the cases, what is the point of giving original jurisdiction? And how do these other courts get original jurisdiction, when there's nothing in the Constitution giving it to them?

If anything, the only way inferior courts should be able to hear any of these cases is if the SC gives it to them - they have original jurisdiction, but can then pass the cases down to circuit courts as they determine which court is should go to.