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.
I mean to say in the previous post:
The statement that the founders intended the Article III original jurisdiction matters given to the Supreme Court to be EXCLUSIVE is a FALSEHOOD.
Really? Well let's see what Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, had to say in regard to whether or not a suit involving the State as a party could be handled by a court lower than the Supreme Court:
Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and 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.
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.
It would appear that you are the one who is being deliberately dishonest. Either that or you are just being obtuse.