It was clear that the intention of the founders (which you accused me of ignoring in your post 36) was that the Supreme Court would have EXCLUSIVE and ORIGINAL Jurisdiction is cases where the State was a party. The constitution was clear and the intention of the framers of the constitution was clear that the Supreme Court and ONLY the Supreme Court would hear a case in which the Federal Government sued one of the Several States.
Congress does not have the authority to amend the Constitution without following the procedures for amending the Constitution. By granting lower courts original jurisdiction over these matters, the Congress has attempted to bypass the language of the Constitution by Congressional fiat.
The Supreme Court has apparently acquiesed to this violation of the founding compact because they are apparently too busy granting people the right to kill their children or determining that local communities can't recognize their religious traditions to bother with such mundane issues as whether or not the State of Arizona has the right to protect its own borders when the president and congress have violated their oaths to protect our country from foreign invasion.
If 28 USC 1251 purports to grant Susan Bolton authority to decide a lawsuit filed by The United States against one of the Sovereign states, then 28 USC 1251 is not constitutional and any decision she made is void.
It was “clearly” NOT the “intention of the founders” that the original jurisdiction given to the Supreme Court in Article III be EXCLUSIVE.
We KNOW this for a FACT.
We know this because President Washington and the first Congress, largely the SAME group of people who wrote the Constitution, took matters that were given to the ORIGINAL jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in the Constitution (in my example, cases brought by Ambassadors) and gave CONCURRENT jurisdiction over those matters to the District Courts in 1789.
This is NOT a matter open for SPECULATION.
Article III does not SAY that the matters given to the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction were EXCLUSIVE.
And it is a PROVABLE FACT that the founders did not consider this to be exclusive.
If they believed it to be exclusive, they COULD NOT have taken the matter as to ambassadors and given it also to the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Courts in 1789.
The statement that the founders intended the Article III original jurisdiction matters given to the Supreme Court is a FALSEHOOD.
I don’t know if it is because you can’t grasp the point I am making, or if you are being intentionally dishonest.
If the truth is not in you, that is sad indeed.
Let me add one more twist of intent: From Federalist paper 81
These reasons seem sufficient to satisfy a candid mind, that the want of such a power would have been a great defect in the plan. Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal. Though it may rather be a digression from the immediate subject of this paper, I shall take occasion to mention here a supposition which has excited some alarm upon very mistaken grounds. It has been suggested that an assignment of the public securities of one State to the citizens of another, would enable them to prosecute that State in the federal courts for the amount of those securities; a suggestion which the following considerations prove to be without foundation.
Maybe I misunderstood Mr Hamilton but it seams the intent was “it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation”