They allowed lower courts to adjudicate suits brought by ambassadors!
The power to adjudicate suits involving ambassadors was given to the Supreme Court in THE VERY SAME clause as the power to adjudicate suits involving a state!!
Here is the text of the Constitution:
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."
If Congress can give concurrent jurisdiction to the district courts involving cases brought by ambassadors, then by the same power it can give concurrent jurisdiction to the district courts in cases involving a state!
If you pretend to continue not to see the FACT that in 1789 President Washington and the first Congress took some of the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction” granted in the Constitution and gave concurrent jurisdiction to the District Courts, then you are being dishonest.
If your position is that YOU have a better understanding of the Constitution than President Washington and the first Congress, a document they WROTE, then you are a fool.
As the Supreme Court itself has observed about this first Congress:
“[The Judiciary Act of 1789] was passed by the first Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument, and is contemporaneous and weighty evidence of its true meaning.” Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265 at 297 (1888).
So which is it, are you dishonest or a fool?
May I quote the Seminal Case on Judicial Review to show your folly?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 (1803), written by Chief Justice John Marshall. At pages 174-175, Justice Marshall discusses Art. III, §2, clause 2:
If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage — is entirely without meaning — if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance. [emphasis added]
***
When an instrument organizing fundamentally a judicial system divides it into one Supreme and so many inferior courts as the Legislature may ordain and establish, then enumerates its powers, and proceeds so far to distribute them as to define the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by declaring the cases in which it shall take original jurisdiction, and that in others it shall take appellate jurisdiction, the plain import of the words seems to be that, in one class of cases, its jurisdiction is original, and not appellate; in the other, it is appellate, and not original…. [emphasis added]
.
Your problem Mister Barley Corn is that you think that anyone who disagrees with you is being dishonest.
That makes you the fool.