The significance of what was done in the Judiciary Act of 1789 is not hard to understand regarding the question of exclusivity.
That was done COLLECTIVELY by President Washington and the Congress.
That COLLECTIVE UNDERSTANDING is far more telling than a statement by any individual.
You still have FAILED to address the matter of the FACT that in 1789 Congress took a matter of original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in the Constitution and gave concurrent jurisdiction to the District Courts.
Are you saying that what they did in 1789 was unconstitutional?
President Washington and the first Congress, a group consisting largely of the men who wrote the Constitution, in your opinion did not understand the very document they wrote and did something UNCONSTITUTIONAL in 1789?
Hmmmmmm??
Or are you just going to continue to IGNORE that?
Is your dishonesty really worth trying to win an argument?
They did not attempt to allow lower courts to adjudicate suits where the state was a party. Had they done so, then it would have been unconsitutional. Just because it was the First Congress does not mean that they were immune from violating the constitution they had passed. Remember the Constitution was designed to limit the power of the Federal Government, and allowing a lawsuit between the United States and one or more of the States in the Union to be heard by lower courts would clearly violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.
Hamilton made a very persuasive argument for the exclusive jurisdiction of the highest court in the nation to hear these disputes. To allow lower courts to hear these issues would give an unfair advantage of larger states or more populist states or the United States against smaller states where the larger states or the US could shop for a lower court venue that would be more favorable to them.
Additionally the idea of State Sovereignty was paramount in the development of the Constitution and to allow lower courts to adjudicate disputes where the a state is a party diminishes that sovereignty.
Your position on this is typically progressive.
Is your dishonesty really worth trying to win an argument?
I have said nothing dishonest. I have expressed my opinion based on both the letter of the law in the Constitution and the words of at least one of the founding fathers. You have not quoted a single founding father on whether or not their intention was to allow inferior courts to rule on disputes between the United States and one or more of the several states. That is a fact.
Now show me a single quote from a founding father that would even suggest that under the Constitution the United States can sue the sovereign state of Arizona in a court inferior to the United States Supreme Court.