You believe? Or you know?
And even were it not so, the fact that I hold a personal opinion (which, in fact, is entirely consistent with historical public documentation) in no way disqualifies that opinion.
Nor does it qualify it. Your opinions are your's alone.
I don't see your language in Article III.
Article III, Section 2: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The legal definition of 'jurisdiction' is the power to interpret and apply the law in a given area. In this case the area is outlined in Clause 1.
Nor do I see any prohibition of the States, acting as parties to the compact, "interpreting and applying the Constitution" as the they deem fit.
What part gives the states that jurisdiction?
Binding?" Not necessarily, according to Mr. Madison's 'public' opinion, voiced in his 'Report on the Virginia Resolutions.'
Binding, according to Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
Absolutely - that is the right the States as parties reserved to themselves.
Hardly.
Are you suggesting that I am wrong? Or not?
;>)
Your opinions are your's alone.
Actually, they are consistent with the published views of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others...
;>)
WIJG: Absolutely - that is the right the States as parties reserved to themselves.
N-S: Hardly.
I refer you (once again ;>) to the ratification documents of New York, Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations, and Virginia - not to mention the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution...