 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 the need for their activities, and to represent the United States to foreign powers. We do not have such a duty passed to the judiciary. It does not have a product or result to generate that marks the success or failure of the Supreme Court's performance efforts. There is no specific outcome assigned to the Supreme Court that is to be gained through its assigned activities. It is rather the actions that it takes that defines its performance. The Supreme Court is accordingly given authority to act in a judicial capacity to operate in a manner that will best assure the purposes of government. For actions in the Supreme Court, it has to be the purposes set upon the government in the preamble. The Congress is to legislate, and its directives apply to all the people in the nation. The President is to execute, and the presidential action applies to all people in the nation. The Supreme Court has not given broad powers, but is to handle specific applications to individuals and smaller groups of people, assuring, as far as possible, that they fulfill the purposes that we the people set upon our government. 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 in this article creates and empowers a branch of government 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 of the English system. The purpose for having courts was established in English law and it was to service the common people with for welfare of the aristocracy and applying the King's law as it was created through legislation, through the royal edicts and applications of sovereign rule. This was interrupted in the American colonies through revolution and the aristocratic purpose denied. The new concept of the 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 applying the common law to the common citizen of the new United States. The deeper challenge was encountered in addressing the citizen's relationship to government and authorization of government to take actions that affect the citizens as individuals. This was new ground, uncertain and unprecedented. The newly formed government faced the same problems as it plagued early democratic governments. It was lack of knowledge, not only in the common person but in common person's representatives and judges unfamiliar with the concept of citizen sovereignty. It was in the behavior of those who set government authority following the prior pattern of sovereign government. In that understanding government was only limited by constitution level provisions. There was also 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. These were to be the people's courts. The courts also suffered from the common misreading of the constituting agreement that acted as if that agreement was a source of sovereignty over the people in the United States. As a working summary, the courts addressed the new constitution as a substitute for the king and assumed that its purpose was to grant sovereign authority to government leadership. 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 this document or actively rejecting it, continued in 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 Congress has passed a law in accord with the process, the courts honored that law. And where the president acted within the general authority of office, the Supreme Court was honored in using that as its authority. In that sense, the Supreme Court has systematically and consistently refused to protect and defend the constitution from internal government abuse, whether through intent or ignorance, it has taken part in that abuse. 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 do not share in the authority of the Supreme Court, but are only authorized and empowered by effective legislation. That marked a clean break with the traditions of the King's Court that were still the law of England. Section 2 addresses the distribution and management of authorities in the federal court system. As in other provisions, it too must be read in general accord with the preamble and the limits of delegation by sovereign citizens. The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws and the United States treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority, to all cases affecting ambassadors, other ministers and councils, 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, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state and a 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 the special legal concept. 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 people only through gaining 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 has further authority to assume jurisdiction over those who prosecute and defend the case, and authority over ancillary matters that are necessary to gain resolution and disposition of the cause that comes before the court. While jurisdiction relies upon law, it only comes from application of law to specific legal persons. Laws do not give jurisdiction to a court. The great challenge arises where Congress passes a law that is beyond its constitutional authority. Does application to a legal person provide a basis for assuming jurisdiction, or just for refusal of jurisdiction? The Supreme Court has chosen to assume jurisdiction and use the individual cause to judge the Congress in terms of the legality of its actions. With the court's reliance upon legal process defining legality, this has led the courts to attempt to find legality through interpretation and support of enacted laws. The result has been called legislation from the bench. That direction of misbehavior involves effective rewriting of the law by judicial decisions, a function not given to the Supreme Court by the constituting agreement, and specifically forbidden to the court by having all legislative powers inherent in just two houses of Congress. Placement of this list of types of cases in the judicial article, which is specifically limited to creating and empowering a Supreme Court, sets its limitation upon that Supreme Court. It is not any limit to the Congress or upon the courts that Congress establishes by passage of laws. I also note that it 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. In specific, the passage of a federal law does not give the court jurisdiction. There must be a case of challenge before its involvement is authorized. What this means is that the decision on subject-like regulation of education for social purposes are not within the authority of this court. It is legal error where it is even attempts to assume jurisdiction. It has no authority in addressing matters of citizen voting unless it addresses a federal voting law. It likewise have no authority in environmental regulation or authority to address most of the matters in which the modern Supreme Court has taken interest, except as the same may challenge legislated matters. It has no authority over matters where the bureaucracy has created rules for its application, as in banking management, except where these have become part of legislation. It has no authority beyond denying the government authority to perform regulation without writing it into law, and the law being the general in application. In all cases affecting ambassadors or public ministers or councils, in other than which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases mentioned before, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress may make. To make the jurisdiction 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 within this article, written to define the Supreme Court. The confusion is not with the above provision, but with the apparent reference to citizen rights to trial and to constitutional 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. It is Congress and the courts it may ordain and establish that will address trials of all crimes except impeachment. Naming these to be inferior courts instead of subordinate courts is indicative that these inferior courts are to answer to Congress. They are not subordinate to the Supreme Court and are able to 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 new government over the nation. Of course the Supreme Court assumed it is to address all matters of interest to the United States. And of course this Court has set higher an authority on all matters that come before it or before any subordinate courts. That after all is the tradition of the King's Court. It is to enforce all royal edicts if the peasants don't like it that is their problem. Section 3 addresses special crimes as 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 in 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 able to address almost any act in disparagement of royal rule or even inconsistent with it to be within the definition of treason. The King could redefine treason to be whatever offended his rule. It has been an abuse that was enforced by the King's court giving official status to the King's statement of official offense. Neither the Supreme Court nor those courts that Congress might ordain and establish were to accept or enforce any redefinition of this crime. That was a limitation placed upon the courts to prevent central government abuses that had been allowed on English law. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainer of treason shall work on corruption of blood or forfeiture upon or during the life of a person attaining it. This limits sentencing even for those convicted. It is in accord with the challenges to the bills of attainer which were used to seize property from the families of convicted criminals to the detriment of those in the family who were innocent of wrong. 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.