[SirJohnBarleycorn]

After reading P-Marlowe's #38, it appears that he has a better argument in your debate.

Huh? He seems to believe that the Judiciary Act of 1789 is still in force.

Now maybe he is walking around in a long-tailed coat lined with buttons and wearing a tricorner hat.

For the rest of us, current law is 28 USC 1251.

[xzins]

Huh? He seems to believe that the Judiciary Act of 1789 is still in force.

No, he believes the Constitution has not been amended and that even the Supreme Court, Congress, George Washington, and John Adams in agreement is still not the prescribed way to amend the Constitution.

I see no way to avoid the argument that the Constitution has been amended by fiat.

It is the same with the filibuster of justices, a situation in which the Senate has amended its responsibility to advise and consent.

The language is what it is. I really don't see a way around it.

[P-Marlowe]

Huh? He seems to believe that the Judiciary Act of 1789 is still in force.

I believe the Constitution is still in force.

For the rest of us, current law is 28 USC 1251.

For some of us the Constitution is still the current law.

If 28 USC 1251 purports to give Susan Bolton jurisdiction to determine a lawsuit by the United States Government against the State of Arizona, then 28 USC 1251 is unconstitutional and any ruling she made on the case is void.