◆ SpookStack

»~ 12 « The Supreme Court does not make it a practice to accept all cases which involve decisions of the courts of appeals which may differ fran decisions of other circuits. The Attorney General goes on to declare that "Full and unimpaired of Government." That must be the Attorney General's opinion; because it 1s not the Constitution; and I guess we are supposed to consider the Attorney General's opinion more fundamental than the Constitution. The Constitution contains the provision in Article III, section 2, clause 2, giving the Congress the right to make regulations and exceptions with respect to the Supreme Court's eprellate jurisdiction, That certainly is not "full and unimpaired" appellate jurisdiction. So we have this situation: the Attorney General is declaring as fundamental something that the Constitution not only does not provide for but specifically provides against. Personally, I'll take the Constitution! The Attorney General goes on to indicate that he regards the Supreme Court as the "final arbiter” in "the maintenance of the balance contemplated in our Constitution as among the three coordinate branches of the Government," But the whole theory of our Constitution is that there should be no "final arbiter"--because the Founding Fathers understood that if any one branch of the Government got complete ascendancy, we would not have a government of checks and balances, but an oligarchy which would lead unquestionably end irresistibly to tyranny. The Constitution did not make the Supreme Court the "final arbiter"-~-nor did even Mr. Justice Marshall, a as on | in Marburyv. Madison. Marshall said there were "some cases" in which