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.
No, actually you are reading into it language that is not there.
You are pretending that the word "exclusive" is in the grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.
It is not.
And it has been understood that way all the way back to 1789, by the very people who wrote the Constitution.
Sorry, I will take their understanding of the actual language they wrote over yours.
Just to bolster that, ask, "Where, in the constitution, does one find a grant of appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, for Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party?" Answer, there is no such grant. And, if Marbury v. Madison is of any value as a precedent, the Court cannot expand its jurisdiction beyond what is granted by the constitution.
Con law is an ad hoc exercise. It's not about being faithful to precedent or authority -- there is enough of both to argue both sides of any case -- it's about winning the argument.
An incoherent body of law is an invaluable resource to facilitate outcome-oriented pronouncement.