It would save a lot of time if you'd get around to demonstrating a flaw in my understanding, or actually offering the explanation and clarification I'm requesting.
I have clearly explained why I think SCOTUS is constitutionally empowered to rule on constitutional issues. Show me the flaw in my comprehension.
I didn't ask for more proof. I asked for some sort of explanation as to what they were talking about.
My understanding comes from the "all cases arising under this constitution" clause. That strictly limits SCOTUS powers. Where the president decides the constitution makes a claim, that claim is assumed true unless there is a significant disagreement. That disagreement is what Article III refers to as a "case". Unless such a "case" arises against the president's interpretation, the president's interpretation is valid. Unless such a "case" arises against the FCC's interpretation, the FCC's interpretation is valid.
Where I disagree with the FCC's interpretation, or Congress disagrees with the President's, a "case" exists, and SCOTUS (and the inferior courts) are constitutionally empowered to resolve that "case".
If that isn't what they, or you, are talking about, my request for further information isn't "sea lioning", but a request to provide an explanation similar to what I have provided above. Show me the flaw in my understanding.
Article III, Sections 1 and 2 grant them jurisdiction of all cases that arise under the constitution. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
SCOTUS doesn't get to act where another government entity has provided an interpretation of the constitution unless someone disagrees with that entity's interpretation. That disagreement is a "case", and Article III is very clear that SCOTUS and the rest of the judicial branch is empowered to decide all "cases".
Ok, please explain to me what powers are conveyed, and to who, in Article III, Sections 1 and 2, because we clearly have wildly different understandings of their meaning.
Please use the word "powers". The government does not have "rights".
The clauses you say don't exist are Sections 1 and 2 of Article III.
What I've described could (mostly) be enacted without a constitutional amendment.
I'm glad you mentioned insulin pumps, because there is a community of developers working on pumps, making them available to a broader audience, providing more people with better control over their blood sugar levels than manufacturers are willing or able to provide on their own.
What you are arguing for is a threat to systems like OpenAPS, and to the people who benefit from them.
People repair their brakes wrong all the time. It's absolutely caused accidents.
It also allows end users to install parts superior to OEM, improving braking capabilities, and preventing accidents.
Any automotive technician can tell you that manufacturers take engineering shortcuts, resulting in a product with certain deficiencies. The manufacturer's motivation is to put out a product that widely appeals to the general public. They want nothing to do with a product specifically tailored to the needs of a particular individual.
Yes, dangers exist from third party repairs.
Refusal or even simple failure to provide critical repair data to the end user or their agent denies the end user the ability to make an informed decision about repairs.
The company should be liable for all damages from a botched 3rd-party repair unless they provide to the end user complete specifications and unrestricted access to the device in order to make informed decisions about repairs.
Proprietary information and corporate classified information do not exist once they are incorporated into the device and sold to the end user. That information now belongs to the end user, who will continue to need it even if the company is out of business, or refuses service to the owner of the device.
Any attempt to conceal that information from the end user should make the company liable for any failed repair performed by any individual, including harm arising from that failed repair. The only way to avoid that liability is to release all information to the end user, so they are fully informed when making a repair decision.
I need this exact pin. You can save some money and make it without any moving parts.
No. I read it. I found no examples mentioned that contradicted the viewpoint I have presented.
For example:
That is perfectly consistent with my viewpoint, and contradicts the other person's argument that the court oversteps its bounds.
The court's function is to resolve "cases". Where two parties come to a disagreement, the court is, indeed, the final arbiter of that disagreement. Where that disagreement is related to constitutionality, the court is requested and required to provide a ruling. That is their job.
Again, not a problem, until there is a conflict between the executive branch and someone else: where a case arises between the executive branch and another party, the court is specifically empowered to resolve that case. Until such a conflict arises, the executive branch is, indeed, empowered to interpret the constitution. But, once that "case" has arisen, Article III puts the ball in the courts.
That very ruling is an example of the court interpreting the constitution at the behest of the parties to a "case". The court would have no ability to respond to address that issue without the parties disagreeing on who was constitutionally empowered to determine what was "proper". If everyone has agreed that the Senate was charged with that duty, the courts don't get involved in the interpretation. If everyone agreed the president, or a magic eight ball was charged with that duty, the courts don't get involved because no case has arisen.
On and on, the essay repeatedly tried to show that there was some inherent problem with the judicial branch doing exactly what Article III empowered it to do: to hear cases. The essay doesn't seem to support the other person's initial claims about the court taking powers it wasn't assigned. But, despite repeated queries, I could get no further context for their claim other than an essay that doesnt support such a claim.
I still can't get you to challenge my own understanding, other than to point at the same essay that doesn't seem to support your position, nor can I get any information from you about what your position actually is.
Address some part of your claims that Article III doesn't mean what it says on the tin. Show me what you are talking about and how it differs from my own understanding.