"--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, or a citizen of a State and the State under the 14th.
Then: "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 ability to proscribe regs is clear enough. The ability pick and choose which acts of Congress, or the States are subject to judicial review and the 2nd Clause's, "with such exceptions to law and fact isn't". The exceptions to law and fact includes such things as evidentiary rules. The exceptions do not extend to allowing Congress to exclude Judicial review itself, or from excluding certain acts of Congress, or any lower body from that judicial review. Clause 1 states' "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made". If the founders had intended to allow Congress to limit any case(s) of law, they would have included the mention here and not in the second clause with process and structure entries. It makes no sense to have a court limited to what it may consider, by the ones creating the subject matter otherwise subject to consideration. Especially when the initial and fundamental jurisdictional clause is given as, in all cases", w/o exception.
IOWs, the mention of "exception (of law)" in the 2nd clause, in no way limits what acts of COngress, or a lower jurisdiction can review. The only limit(s) to that, is what the court itself may choose to make.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 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.
Okay, in Clause 1 judicial power for all Constitutional cases of law and equity is granted to the Supreme Court. In Clause 2 the Court is given original jurisdiction in some types of cases. Clause 2 says that in all other types of cases the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction unless Congress makes exceptions. In other words, Congress cannot limit jurisdiction for those types of cases singled out in Clause 2, but for all other types of cases listed in Clause 1 it can.
In the past year some in Congress have talked about applying their authority to limit the federal courts by passing a statute that would prohibit the courts from determining whether or not it is Constitutional to keep the phrase, "under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance. What's keeping Congress from using this authority is their wobbliness (this applies to most 'Icans) or their religion (their faith-based belief--one can't find it in the Constitution--that the Supreme Court is the final authority; this applies to most 'Rats).
So why do you choose to worship at the alter of the Supreme Court along with most 'Rats?