[Lurker]

"In cases affecting Ambassadors," one idea separated from another idea by a comma then "other public Ministers and Consuls", yet another idea separated by a comma, then "and those in which a State shall be a Party", yet another separate idea with a comma separating it from the previous ideas.

If the Founders meant what you say why didn't they simply write "If a case has Ambassadors, public Ministers and Consuls and a State the Supreme Court has jurisdiction"?

No, those are all separate ideas and only a Lawyer could read it otherwise.

[AaronInCarolina]

No, those are all separate ideas and only a Lawyer could read it otherwise.

So the 1st paragraph of Section 2 is nullified by the 2nd one? Because the 2nd paragraph describes the 1st paragraph cases as appellate jurisdiction. And the 1st paragraph includes cases involving Ambassadors and States as separate cases which are clearly stated as appellate jurisdiction cases. It makes no sense at all to then in the next paragraph declare that any case involving an Ambassador OR any state as having original jurisdiction. It completely nullifies the 1st paragraph of section 2.