 With Congress, there is a duty to pass laws and impeach officers as needed. With the President, there is a duty to execute the laws, to keep Congress informed of their need for activities, and to represent the United States to foreign powers. We do not have such a duty set upon the judiciary. It does not have a product or result to generate that marks the successor failure of the Supreme Court's performance. There is no specific outcome assigned to the Supreme Court that is to be gained through the assigned activities. Its actions define its performance. The Supreme Court is to operate in a manner that will best assure the purposes of government, those written into the preamble. The Congress is to legislate and its directives apply to all the people in the nation. The President is to execute and presidential action applies to all the people in the nation. The Supreme Court is not given broad powers, but is to handle specific applications to individuals and smaller groups of people. Again, what the Court is to do is not responsive to the concept of checks and balances or separation of powers. The purpose is fulfilled by coordinated efforts. It is each of the branches of government supporting and working with the other branches to fulfill the people's purpose in establishing their government. The first section of this article creates and empowers a Supreme Court, giving it unique purposes, unique functions, and unique authorities to act. This branch of government will have the same overriding purpose as the other branches, getting its purpose from the larger constituting agreement signed on behalf of we the people. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. This is different than the courts in the English system. The English courts were to serve the common people for the welfare of the aristocracy. Those courts were to apply the King's law as it was created through legislation, through royal edicts, and like applications of sovereign law. This was interrupted in the American colonies through revolution and the aristocratic purpose denied. The new concept of a sovereign people also brought in a new challenge in terms of people being the source of judicial authority instead of being simple subjects. Even more than before the revolution, the courts would have to act with the consent of the governed. As the purpose of the English courts and the common law had both been benevolent to the common person, this was no challenge so long as the courts continued to apply the common law to the common citizen of the new United States. The deeper challenge was encountered when addressing the citizen's relationship to government and the authorization of government to take actions that affected citizens as individuals. This was new ground, uncertain, unprecedented. The newly formed government faced the same problems as it plagued early democratic governments. It was the lack of knowledge, the only the common person but in the common person's representatives and judges unfamiliar with the concept of citizen sovereignty. It was in the behavior of leaders following the prior pattern of sovereign government. There was also the limited function of the Supreme Court with the remainder of judicial function given to the federal courts that answered directly to Congress instead of to the Supreme Court. Inferior courts were to be the people's courts. The courts also suffered from the common misreading of the constituting agreement. An act as if that agreement was a source of sovereignty over the people of the United States. As a working summary, the courts addressed the new constitution as a substitute for the king. In specific, the Supreme Court did not accept the purposes stated in the preamble to be a limit upon what government could legitimately do. This court, whether simply misreading the document or actively rejecting what it said, continued to ignore the sovereignty of the U.S. citizen. As will be noted with amendments, the courts have honored the process of government above any citizen delegation purpose. Where the Congress has passed laws in accord with the approved process, the courts honored that law. Where the president acted within the general authority of office, the Supreme Court has honored that use of presidential authority. In that sense, the Supreme Court has systematically and consistently refused to protect and defend the constitution. For creation of other inferior courts by legislation, we have the curious repetition of the words used in the preamble for creating the United States. It provides for Congress to ordain and establish inferior courts in its representative capacity. These inferior courts are to answer to the people's representatives rather than to superior judicial authorities. They are only authorized and empowered by effective legislation that marked a clean break with the traditions of the courts that were applied to the law of England. Section 2 addressed the distribution of management of authorities in the federal court system. As in other provisions, it too must be read in general accord with the preamble and limits of delegation by authority of citizens. 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, to other ministers or councils, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies which the United States shall be a party, to controversies between two or more states, between a state and a citizen of another state, between a citizens of different state, between citizens of the same state claiming lands or grants under different states, and between a state and or citizen thereof and foreign states, citizens or subjects. The meaning of this provision stated as a list of cases being covered is in accord with a few special legal concepts. The most important is jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a term in recognition that the courts have no natural power over any person. They gain authority to deal with citizens only through taking jurisdiction. This is official notice that some legal cause comes within the defined area of authority of a court. When a court takes jurisdiction over a case, it also assumes jurisdiction over those who prosecute and defend the case. And over ancillary matters. When the jurisdiction relies upon law, it only comes from application of law to specific legal persons. Laws cannot give jurisdiction to a court. The great challenge arises where Congress passes a law that is beyond its constitutional authority. Does the application have to a legal person provide a basis for assuming jurisdiction or just a refusal of jurisdiction? The Supreme Court has chosen to assume jurisdiction and use the individual cause to judge the congressional actions. Legislative process then defines legality. The court attempts to find legality through interpretation. The result has been called legislating from the bench. That direction of misbehaving involves effectively rewriting the law from the judicial decision. That is specifically forbidden to the court by having all legislative powers inherent in Congress. The special listing of cases must be seen as intentionally limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As a counternote, this provision is not any limit upon Congress or upon the courts that Congress establishes. I also note that this is a closed list. There is no catch-all language that would allow the Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction of other matters or other cases. No federal law can give this court jurisdiction. There must be a case of challenge before the involvement is authorized. What this means is that decisions on subjects like regulation of education for social purposes are not within the authority of the court. It is legal error where even attempts to make such jurisdiction. It has no authority in addressing matters of citizen voting unless it addresses a federal voting law. It is likewise of no authority in environmental regulation or authority to address most of the matters in which the modern Supreme Court has taken an interest, except as the saying may be challenged and legislative matters. It has no authority over matters where bureaucracy has created rules for its application, as in the banking management, except where these have become part of legislation. It has no authority beyond denying government authority to perform regulation, except where the same is written into the law. In all cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and councils, and those in which the state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and as to fact, with the exception and under such regulation as the Congress may make. To make jurisdiction over a matter even clearer, we have an immediate reference to the list above as where the court has jurisdiction. This is followed by another provision which raises a bit of confusion when addressed with an Article III. The confusion is not within the provisions, but with the apparent reference to citizen rights to trial and the Congressional Authority to act. Neither of these address the Supreme Court as it lacks jurisdiction. The trial of all crimes except cases of impeachment shall be by jury. The Supreme Court apparently lacks authority to determine issues of fact when it sits as a body of original jurisdiction on criminal actions. Any citizen party is entitled to have a jury of peers determine the facts. What does make sense is the continuation of the Congressional Authority to empower inferior courts. These courts may address trial of all crimes except impeachment. Naming these to be inferior courts instead of subordinate courts is indicative. They are not subordinate to the Supreme Court and may assume jurisdiction over matters not open to the Supreme Court. Needless to say, the writing of the Constitution has been ignored where it did not support the royal rule of the new government over the nation. The Supreme Court has assumed all matters of interest to the United States and, of course, this court sets itself as a higher authority on all matters that come before it or before any of the subordinate courts. That is, after all, the traditional purpose of a king's court. It is to enforce all royal edicts. If the peasants don't like it, that is their problem. Section 3 addresses the special crime of treason, which is by definition an offense against the United States. It defines this crime through limitation. It keeps even Congress from redefining it for political or social reasons. It sets minimum requirements for proof of fact in cases of trial for this crime. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession at open court. The reason for singling out this one crime for special treatment is a matter of history and vision. The royal government had been traditionally addressed any act and a disparagement of royal rule or even inconsistent with it to be treason. The king could redefine treason to be whatever greatly offended his rule. It had been abuse that was enforced by the king's court, giving official status to the king's statement of official offense. This provision provided a limitation on the courts to prevent central government abuses that had been allowed under the English law. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainer of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attain it. This limits sentencing even for those convicted. It is in accord with the challenges to bills of attainer which were used to seize property from families of convicted criminals to the detriment of those in the family who were innocent of wrong. In summation, this article establishes a Supreme Court, not a federal court system. That is the privilege of Congress and Congress is set into authority over it. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not include interpreting the Constitution, nor does it allow the Supreme Court to act as a jury in determining matters of fact in cases that it hears where it has original jurisdiction. Only where it is hearing appeals. This court has not properly served the United States.