Substance versus Process
It is necessary to know the two facts: that the U.S. tradition of a “chief magistrate” has begun actually by George Washington circa 1794; and, further, that he has supposed it quite a while after the Founding Convention circa 1787 had considered rather, that the “judicial department” would become the due investiture of the magistracy, i.e., of the general magistrates of the United States—the more so, because the federal government should have a clear separation-of-powers between any presidency and any judge.
The first fact is fallible and incorrect, albeit also impeccable. The first U.S. President did not enjoy any predecessor or tradition but for his own, which he had to conjure or make up every day. Whereas the office enjoys indeed the invests of the Pardon, to be the Commander-in-Chief(tess), of the Extraordinary Summons of the Congress, or to be the Appointer of all Superior Officers of the United States, i.e., the federal government; so then do George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton not deserve any fault for a third fact, namely, that the second fact exists at all. (One thanks so the Appointments Clause in article II.)
As a point of the second Fact, however, it is the case indeed, that under the new articles of 1787, which are ratified and effective since 1788, the magistracy and the U.S. magistrates belong wholly unto article III; its sections 1, 2, and 3; and never properly to, or by, articles I or II. A judge adjudges, and does not legislate or pontificate. That is, a U.S. bankruptcy-equity-judge, a U.S. civil-court magistrate-law-judge, or a martial-court magistrate-equity-judge, for example, are already necessarily article-III officers. Their judgeships happen merely too inferiorly to be appointable by the President, as has the Congress designated or directed elsewhere beforehand by a statute or a joint resolution [though, importantly, not by the common law].
The 2025 stare-decisis presupposes that those three classes of judgeships (and others like they) would be article-I ‘inferior tribunes,’ in order to justify that they do not enjoy otherwise the protections of irreducible salaries; nor good-behavior commissions [vs. ‘for-life’]; nor some plenary authority over life, limb, property, reputation, or personhood [Civil Rights]; nor over the speedy matters around some civil, or maritime, or martial, or natural, or whatever Rights otherly adjudicable.
These words and their contexts betray themselves already. The power of a judge, no matter how petty or grand the case or controversy may be, nevertheless exists in article III; owes itself to article III; and is not, cannot be, nor ought to be, nor shall be a truly ‘inferior tribunal’ through article I, that article III would be no longer material in every action of any courtroom or chambers, nor that article II would be conflated wrongly & falsely for the chief magistrate.
As a point of the third Fact, for example, the chief magistrate is already promoted in style to Chief Justice, whose person in 2025 is John G. Roberts since 2005.
Chief Justice Roberts, if the Constitution of 1788 did not appoint him already elsewise, could name himself still accurately for the Chief Magistrate of the United States [benennen]. That excludes the President, importantly; and it delimits article II then strictly to the matters of ‘the one who presides,’ for example, a four-year diplomat who liaises or facilitates the Cabinet, the Congress, and Supreme Court all together. The President presides, as much as the Vice President presides over the U.S. Senate. The Chief Magistrate does not preside over anything, but for those actions that require judicial/judicable intervention over real harms by due remedies. The first presides over the States. The second presides over the States’ invests by the Congress. The third presides over the States’ rights by, for, of the Union (per amendments IX, X, XI, XII, and XIV).
The foregoing seven paragraphs have altered a centuries-long misconception, that the President were the chief magistrate. That was never the case. In legal Fact has the Chief Justice been the Chief Magistrate the whole time since 1788, as if the Supreme Court could feel itself once so brave to confront the other branches-of-government on its own powers that are inalienable of article III [sua sponte] (especially as to articles I and VI).
The President of the United States wears many hats, like that of a diplomat, a head-of-state, a military-commander, etc., &c.; but the real work consists in the presiding-over, here, in the presiding over the United States, the entire Union, including the States who have elected the same person around article II, plus amendment XII. The President presides. The Vice President presides over the States’ investitures. The Chief Magistrate, a.k.a., Chief Justice Roberts, presides finally over the States’ Rights, over foreign interests that affect the Union or the States, and over other exigent things due to real harms (vis-à-vis the Court’s unique original jurisdiction in art. III, sec. 2).
But what if, by a quirk of culture, instead of Constitution, the Chief Justice and the U.S. Supreme Court were unavailable to the Constitution or their cocitizens, on account that the other players in the game would have hijacked articles I and II, while obfuscating their destruction of article III or their dismissal of articles IV, V, and VI?
The balance of substance and process consists ever at the confluence of wills and acts, here, at the choice of all notaries, attorneys, esquires, solicitors, barristers, judges, clerks, etc., &c., that they would elect speedy over perfect; exigent over probable; or magistrate over judge, because they would extol the Constitution over, instead, despite of the cultures of their own associates, clubs, bars, cults, and paraphernalia.
Human words deserve to enjoy everyday significance again. Legal words deserve to effect, not to irritate. They ought to provoke, invoke, and evoke. They shall mean something much grander, than a petty malassumption that the naysayers were ever the baddoers. As a point of the first Fact, and now a fourth Fact, it is actually the case [tatsächlich], that everybody is a judge per se, because not everybody can be a magistrate per quod.
Judiciary and Lawyers
The due process, which the secondary-educated U.S. citizen knows immediately, is the procedural side of the Judiciary and its works. The phrases, like compulsory process and no self-witness, seem so magical as to invoke stupid fanciness. That could be so. Also it could mean that the U.S. Constitution has an original intelligent design, which unlocks itself by the cognitive integration of, here, articles III, IV, V, and VI.
Article III establishes the appointments, perquisites, and goals of any federal (U.S.) judgeship. Article IV connects together, that art. III, sec. 3., is operative by good sua-sponte motions of the U.S. Courts in such matters like interstate commerce, privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens, or the substantive due process, which the tertiary-educated resident is less likely to know, besides the esteemed esquires of, here, the U.S. American Bar Association. But the distinction is not complex! Procedural process is the rules of pleading, practice, and administration. These are the trade-tools of the bar-admitted esquires (inclusive of their relatively superior echelons). The clerks practice them officially; and the notaries, attorneys, ‘paralegals’, and solicitors give counsel on them, so that the real parties of any suit are availed of the real object: substantive process. It is more or less the rules of detention, arrest, jail, prison, or impeachment—to imply a sliding scale of degrees from the petty, thru the offensive, to the high/seditious/treasonous, whether martial or civil or maritime or whatsoever. Process means the rulebook-manual, the statutes-books, etc., &c.; and meanwhile does substance mean the motions that affect people, the real matters of that, which process effects between the Court and the People.
Substantive due process is not only a legal fiction-reality thru amendments IX, X, XI, and XIV. It is furthermore the review and scrutiny of the police, who do policies, on behalf or instead of higher officers, so that none during the power-chain-of-custody, should or ought to abuse the opportunity-of-government for an undue cost-of-coercion. Substantive means that the policies deserve by the police, to be interpreted so cleanly and fairly, that process does not preëmpt the substantive rights of those, who may be detained or beyond: because, frankly, clean hands and fair dealings do extol the Constitution; they reward so-called ‘qualified immunity’ (via amendments II and III); and they enjoin the police affirmatively, from mistreating any arrest-subjects, jail-captives, prison-wards, &c., in order that the general adjudication of both procedural and substantive Rights shall become respected wholly in Dignity and Reputation [Love], instead of Turpitude or despite ill Faith [Hate]. Plainly, nobody has to be a friend of the public or the political government, but everyone has to be a friend of the court (amicus curiae), because everybody deserves a clean & fair trial wherein the participants, including the magistrates & judges & clerks, do tell the truth on themselves, never on others—and only the whole truth, excepting some burly hearsay or some perjury or subornation. (Amen.)
Licensed solicitors and barristers deserve so some perquisite in their suffering from the law-school of their attendances, from the Bar Exam, even from the general practice of Justice; but the rest of the Judiciary deserves those benefits likewise. The law-license is the progressive tradeoff, which anyone experiences during the personal observance or the societal experiment of Law and Equity (per article III, section 2). The more educated of the law, the less useful to the law any person would be, because the less-educated do not enjoy the same higher privileges of trust or language, than would the more-educated have gained by the given status-quo. Trust and language tend indeed to become intermingled, insofar as the witnesses are disallowed to rely on their instincts in any suit in a courtroom. This has to stop itself. We have to stop it ourselves. Everyone will be honest, if everyone knew that the courts were not too classificatory [classist], that an ‘uneducated’ truck-driver would be less an expert-witness, than a decorated physician or law-firm partner. All words are surely equal in a courtroom. They must be, shall be, and are supposed to be.
The perquisite of a Bar license is less, that the licensee would be more honest or reliable to the court; it is more, that the licensor has tested the given person already, in such manner that would have been public, equal, meritorious, and voluntary. Therefore are the Court and the Bench inherently well competent to equalize other tests than the Bar Exam, especially in respect of article VI, so that all persons have an equal opportunity and free merit, to be their own attorneys, even if not an esquire or solicitor, etc., &c.
That any peaceable or reasonable person can represent oneself pro se or pro hac vice, is an inalienable Right of amendments VII and IX, because it protects process by confining substance to clean hands and fair dealings. (This regards particularly the common laws of the U.S. states of Kansas, New York, California, Oregon, and Washington.)
The traditions of the U.S. Founders were clearly and concisely favorable to self-interested representation, provided that they have existed in a time before amendments XIII or XXIV. However, in 2025, amendments XIV and XXI make it clear, that pro-se or pro-hac-vice representation shall consist without the discrimination of religion, race, origin, sex, creed, ability, or language. (One thanks so the integration of amds. VII, IX, X, and XI.) Where a party is less educated than the Bench or the Bar, but wishes to speak for themself anyways, it becomes to the Court’s Obligation as an organ/agent of article III, that the Bench and the Bar shall meet the parties at the common law of common sense, so that all natural persons would have fair & clean access to substantive & procedural due process.
Although the words are not enumerated until this essay, a lawyer is not necessarily anyone who has passed a Bar Exam. The style means any apostle or disciple of the Constitution, thereby, means any person who trades off humility & grace for his/her voluntarily public & political good behavior, as far as he/she has learned Law and Equity, and knows thus not to abuse the knowledge, nor to ask questions without good answers, in order to keep the peace and safeguard practicable Justice.
Anyone can be a lawyer and be so a member of the Judiciary, if she/he wants to realize applied ethics and due process. Not anyone can be an attorney, or solicitor, or esquire, etc.
The Judiciary is available to everyone; but its Practice & Pleading & Administration are licensed under greater degrees of publicly tested trust, in order to enjoy fitted privileges or immunities for residents, taxpayers, and citizens. Everybody is thus a judge per se, because not everybody can be there a magistrate per quod.
The spirits and the letters, of Law and Equity, are degreed; they are not separate or disparate by any kinds, but for one, and that is the practice to live the truth as if one would be a friend of the court, or otherwise, an attorney-at-Equity at least. Provided that a person would be credit- and trustworthy by some perquisite, so she/he enjoys to be an attorney unto themself, especially in matters of Equity or Law, where Love ought to prevail over Hate, even in the official proceedings of U.S. Courts.
The Bench is not the Court. The Bar is not the Court, either. Any courtroom is merely an extension of the whole Judiciary, thence, of every lawyer’s conceptions of Justice. Every courtroom is thus available to any friend, no matter the religion, race, origin, sex, creed, ability, or language. These friends do not have to be friendly unto themselves, nor the society, nor the community; it suffices, that they would be friends to the Truth enough, that they are trusted and accredited by a judicial magistrate in the clean & fair process of a substantive suit.
The Bench is too peculiar to be available to anybody. The Court is not so. The longer the Bar would be unavailable to the common sense of common law, the longer the Court would be abused by the Bench in the false names of Justice. In turn, the sooner the Bar becomes common and available, the sooner the Court earns its works in the friendships of communities and societies.
Truthtelling is friendship, plainly and simply. The friends of the public are any lawyers of the Judiciary. The friends of the court are peculiarly different: they have tested themselves equally, freely, politically and meritoriously, in order to have credit and trust. Anyone can believe, but only fewer do practice.
The Bar’s barristers are so many and diverse, as the number of persons who have passed the Bar Exam or a fair-and-clean equivalent test, for the Bar is available to any trust- or creditworthy person. By this way does substantive due process protect itself for whatever pro-se or pro-hac-vice representations. Moreover, the friends of the court shall be always the good-standing members of an extrajudicial body, where the lawyers become capable truthtellers and friends, and where they safeguard their trade and craft against whatever baddoers (but never naysayers).
That body is the agency of hermeneutics for the People and the Government alike; and it is the extraordinary coequal onto every Court, so that the administration of Justice should not falter, hinder, or defeat the pleading & practice of the same. The Courts shall regulate the substantive proceedings, whereas the Chambers shall rule the procedural process. Their distinction is already constitutional in the United States and other nations; but in the Republic of Silofais will there be, must be firm and parallel boundaries, in order to prevent the false contortions of Truth, Mercy, and Justice.
The Bar is available to those who deserve its admission with or without a law-school education. In contrast, the Testifium shall be a unique cult of paraphernalia, where the practice of the Constitution earns public compensation for political work; avails itself only to the common good; is yet dyingly veracious; and enshrines itself outside still for the Equity of Courts and Chambers; so that their trials could do Law as in the eventual jurisdiction of a competent magistrate, who can adjudge a character well enough to extol and safeguard each trial into the clean, safe, good-faith, and honorable fashions.
Not every person is a lawyer. Not every lawyer is a member of the Testifium. Not every testifiary agent or officer is a judge or a magistrate. (Most are notaries and clerks.) But every judge or magistrate is a good-standing member of the Testifium; is a voluntarily good lawyer; and conveys an upstanding moral integrity of her/his own personhood, that the factual Person and the procedural Law would be conflated correctly for the same character. (Amen.)
Testifium
Justitia Omnibus | Justice for All
A real-world example helps here. Chief Justice Roberts would be in Silofais (i) a person, (ii) a lawyer, (iii) a member of the Testifium, (iv) a judge on a bench of a court, (v) the chief magistrate of the bench of a supreme court, and (vi) not an officer of the Testifium whatsoever, as the counterbalance to his rank in a Court. Indeed: the Pleading & Practice & Administration are the official jobs of the Court all together, whereas the Testifium is the collection of the Court’s associates, clubs, bars, cults, and paraphanelia. The chief magistrate superintends the Courts, while the president of the Testifium leads or counsels (i) the lawyers of the Judiciary, (ii) the friends of the public, (iii) the friends of the court, and (iv) the public-political lifestyle of governmental agents and officers. The judges, clerks, notaries, and attorneys concentrate themselves well on other things than constant self-observation. Someone else deserves to watch the ways of professional ethics, and who else would be better, than their own colleagues who control their licenses to practice good behavior?
Many people can be lawyers, but few elect the profession (or hobby). Fewer practice the law, and only fewer administer it. Some of the law is substantive [policies, police, and subjects]. Some of it is procedural [statutes, rules, regulations, and common sense]. All of it is real and material [Justice].
None of the law wastes time, hopefully, more or less than the original time-wasters, who would have caused a tort, a misdemeanor, or worse.
Whenever the matters of a case or controversy become so aggravated, that a federal (U.S.) Court would make its courtroom available to the common sense of the common law, there ought to be no fear or delusion. The presence of a higher authority shall bring nothing, but the wisdom of higher echelons, their perspectives, and their pro-Union partiality. Lower authorities are speedier or more brash, but are never less competent, only more local and less administrative than a Silofaisan (or U.S.) courtroom.
The court is surely a friend to anyone who tells the truth, thereby, whosoever deserves a member-card, a challenge-coin, or another cult/token to signify a publicly/politically passed trial, so that a Trial of the Court would & should be no more difficult a concern than being a friend, i.e., “telling the truth, the whole truth, so help you Goddess/God/Gods/yourself. (Amen.)”
The Testifium exists, and its president presides, in order to steer the strategic ways of the professional, political, or public practices of the Judiciary, no matter the education or echelon of the subjects, and no matter the personalities of its lawyers. The Courts are the administrative governmental speakers, where do work the magistrates of the Constitution, their clerks and sheriffs and bailiffs and jailors, etc., &c. But the Testifium is the association, where friends & notaries & esquires & all sorts of truthtellers can have their social outlets in ethical fashions without rank, but by opportunity and merit, all together in the coóperation of a master-of-ceremonies (MC), i.e., the president of their association, who in their opinions, best drinks the equitable popular wisdom, best integrates the laws in their steads, and best shares the drink with others voluntarily publicly, perhaps politically, but always in good faith, true honor, clean hands, and fair dealings. Here is their fraternal sorority, or their feminine patriarchy, in order to obey and cajole alike their tactical and administrative counterparts (often, themselves) in the Courts of Law or Equity (or both).
If everyone has a boss, so does Chief Justice Roberts. His is fourfold: the Almighty; the Spouse and Family; the Court and Bench; and the president of the U.S. American Bar Association. It is important to note that the President of the U.S. (of any person) is not included on that list. The Chief Magistrate of the United States is a political position in a political organ (despite the 2025 peacocking), but its politics are judicial, not legislative or executive. That is also important to note. Both points of Law [vs. Fact], they mean indeed that the President of the United States is not a magistrate, does not do Justice, but executes it as under the Warrants or Seals of the Supreme Court, or inferior Courts, or the Congress, or Committees thereof, etc., &c.
Incidentally: the Republic of Silofais has the same judicial bosses. There are a Foretribune, who presides over the Supreme Court; the Tribunes thereof, who compose the remainder of its Bench; the president of the Testifium, who superintends their licenses; and the Constellan, who officially nominates each graduation of a judge (or magistrate), and whose appointment depends on the consent of an entire majority in the College of Delegates, where does equitable popular wisdom espouse already well.
Whereas the agents, clerks, esquires, and so many other members of the Testifium do not have to endure such tests of graduation under constantly harsh public scrutiny, so the judges (and magistrates) enjoy peculiar perquisites, like behavior-dependent commissions (not time-dependent); or irreducible salaries on the same continuance of a Court; or qualified immunities against certain suits, subpoenas, or warrants; etc., etc., &c.
The Testifium is available to any lawyer, including the private or unfriendly, as long as they are friends someway to the courtroom in regular behavior. The Bar-to-speak is available only to those lawyers, however, who can do the job publicly under scrutiny (or investigation). That is an important barrier, and because of it does the president of the Testifium enjoy equal administrative rank of the chief magistrate. Their bosses are the others.
Once commissioned, and until their next nominations to another degree of the Court-system, the judges (and the magistrates) are peculiar lawyers who have earned a public merit by equal opportunity in the College of Delegates, in order to counterbalance the professional truthtellers against themselves, the professional naysayers. As the Constellan and the Delegates shall have said at least 56% yeas or ayes, so each commissioned Judge or Magistrate or Tribune or Justice, etc., &c., shall have to pronounce many nays and noes, in order to safeguard: life, limb, property, reputation, and personhood [Civil Rights]; as well as the Dignity and Love of all People, instead of Turpitude or despite ill Faith. They have thus so many bosses already. They do not require more bosses than those, or than those earlier said. These bosses are sufficient, and their number justifies why judicial Commissions are not temporal, but are behavioral, standing in the joy of qualified immunities [vs. sovereign].
The name is the job. Everybody is a judge, including the notaries and esquires, etc., who form out occasional Chambers in order to do initial official Justice. Fewer are the magistrates, who read Law and Equity in order to adjudge personal Rights against societal Prerogatives. All of them are friends of the Testifium, in order to be friends of the courtroom; and only such friends do earn the privilege to speak at the Bar or the Bench of the Courts, even if the Pews are available to everybody.
May justice, truth, and mercy be so available to all persons, even if Justice may look deathly or veracious from time to time. (Amen.)
Supreme Court
Now that the street-level words may match the library-wise vocabulary, and vice versa, it is possible to discuss the general original exclusive jurisdiction of any supreme court, though here, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Silofais, as under its example in the United States and Chief Justice Roberts. The more fearful tactic of 2025 lawyers is their conviction of the remaining civilization, that they could not discern Law and Equity for themselves. This is false. They could, they can, and they shall. If anyone understands the important distinctions of a U.S. Supreme Court against a New York Supreme Court—namely, that the latter are regular trial-courts, even though the name implies the former, a fifth fact which anyone but a lawyer would find unnecessarily confusing—then it is possible also, that anyone understands the distinction of a Chief Magistrate and a Foretribune.
The Foretribune of the Republic of Silofais holds equal rank against the Constellan, the Provost, the Speaker, and the Chancellor (i.e., the nominal heads of the other branches). He/she is constitutionally the longest-serving member of the Court’s Bench, but the person may resign from the Style alone and may pass it along to the next longest-serving Tribune. She/he issues the writs-of-election for the Constellan and the Grand Forum, presides over the highest cases-of-impeachment, and bespeaks (or decides) the intra-administrative affairs of the bureaus of the Court, those of other Courts, and the Judiciary at large—among so many other official duties, of course.
The Foretribune, like the other Tribunes and the Supreme Court as a whole, is ever more a role-example than an example-setter, insofar as the example-setting belongs to the local or the speedier cases under their day-to-day workings. The said Court enjoys original (and exclusive) jurisdiction “whenever any Treaty be concerned; the ambassadors, envoys, and consuls of this State or another be affected; this State be a party against another; or a Writ of Quo Warranto, Mandamus, or Prohibition be sought.” Because Silofais is a unitary state, it has only one Supreme Court; but its S.C. has merely an appellate authority, after the Facts are reviewed, whenever the case or controversy would be such ‘small potatoes’ that it suffices to be heard originally in a smaller-echelon Court. It is important to understand any Court as the works of an original Jurisdiction, or else a person confuses themself in the administration of Justice. Ratified treaties, foreign officials, interstate conflicts, and reviews of substantive due process are very clean & fair things, to be the exclusive original Jurisdiction of any S.C., here, the S.C. of the Republic of Silofais. It is a smaller basket than it seems, because it leaves other inferior Courts the many questions on admiralty- or maritime-cases; on defamation- or copyright-controversies; on fundamental Rights between Equity and Law; on the applications of federal funding by statal institutions; on the privileges or immunities of residents, taxpayers, citizens, and foreign subjects; etc., etc., &c. The Foretribune and the remaining Tribunes may spend most of their times on their appellate cases or controversies; they may superintend the rules and regulations of the Practice & Pleading & Administration of the Courts at large and the Judiciary in general [dürfen; poder]; but always must they overtake these special matters in original (and exclusive) Jurisdiction, because their Appointments and Commissions shall have constrained them thereto, after having earned the correct Prerogative by 56% of the Delegates and keeping that Prerogative thru good conduct.
Whereas certain Courts receive certain Commissions to fill their Seats on their Benches, so the Bar, the Jury, and the Pews congregate themselves by real, material, relevant, unmoot, ripe, and actual cases or controversies. It is then merely coincidental, that the Court may have appointed in advance of any motion, action, trial, Chamber, or Court the special milieus of the clerks, notaries, attorneys, solicitors, barristers, bailiffs, sheriffs, jailors, etc., etc., &c. Everyone has a part to play, because not everybody is everything in a suit-at-court. Real suits have real people; and thus the only parties not to be a party, besides the Tesitifium, are the enshrined members of every Jury from time to time. The Jury must be impartial, but not dispassionate; and the Magistrate must be passionate, but not partial. Such dichotomies or paradoxes keep any proceeding all clean, fair, honorable, and faithful. (Who else sets or reviews such epitome, but for the Supreme Court and its Bench?)
Chief Justice Roberts and the Foretribune of Silofais are nearly identical in their official Duties and Rights, except that the latter obeys the president of the Tesitifum de jure, not only de facto. A common farmer has in Silofais so much an equal Right to begin an ethical complaint in the Testifium against the Foretribune, as would Thomas Jefferson have had the Right to push John Adams into the Cabinet, where he might have presided as the Vice President over two, not only one institution (1794–1803). This is to say, that the U.S. Founders were deliberately vague in the intelligent design of the U.S. Constitution, but this design becomes clearer thru the public awareness of judicial process. Cultures are not Constitutions, and the attorneys & solicitors & barristers & magistrates ought to obey the latter, instead of the former. Accordingly becomes it the case, that the Vice President of the United States is equally the President of the Senate (per the text) and the President of the Cabinet (per inference of article II). That offends usual separation-of-powers, which is why the Silofaisan Chancellor shall have no Seat in the Grand Forum; why the Magisters’ Provost and the Delegates’ Speaker shall not serve concurrently on the Cabinet; and why the Constellan shall preside over the diplomats or captains, but never over the ministers or accountants. In this Republic do the branches know what their Duties are not, so that they know what their Duties are. In the United States today would it be unconscionable that a common farmer would file a legitimate ethical grievance against the Chief Justice (2025). In the Republic of Silofais forever will it be normal or acceptable, as long as the said farmer shall have true cause, good faith, clean hands, and fair dealings—or, the same Qualifications of any lawyer of the Judiciary, with or without a law-school education. (Amen.)
The Supreme Court is every courtroom, provided that not every courtroom would be the Supreme Court. This maxim makes sense of the Judiciary the most concisely.
The Supreme Court has the most general, original, and exclusive Jurisdiction, except that the matters of its Jurisdiction do not happen often enough for the everyperson, nor matter to them at their echelon. The milkman does not worry himself about a treaty, no more or less than does a grandma fret herself about the whims of a spoiled child. This explicates why a District Court judgeship is commissioned especially for a Seat on said Court, while a Appeals Court judgeship is commissioned especially for a Seat thereon, while a Supreme Court judgeship is also so, etc., etc., &c. The hierarchies of the Judiciary shall be set never in the graduation of judges’ (or magistrates’) Commissions, which are forever political objects; but shall set themselves rather in the good behavior, as is understood and enforced thru the public licensure by the Testifium and its president—who is ultimately a private agent of the law’s Hermeneutics, instead of a public magistrate of the Judiciary. As they have parallel but distinct goals, so they have equal and distinct Prerogatives: one adjudges, and the other licenses.
District-level courtrooms, circuit-ridden courtrooms, or whatever sorts of them, do have in common the sixth Fact, that every United States or Silofaisan Court derives its unique Jurisdiction from the Supreme Court—not separately or disparately, but directly and concurrently. Is this pronounced somewhere? No, not yet. The fact speaks for itself in the Laws and the Procedure, as soon as a person beholds the courtroom like does a qualified lawyer or an amicus curiae.
The fact is a key that unlocks article III of the U.S. Constitution, so that the original intelligent design should behold itself. As every Court defines itself by original jurisdiction, so every Court has exclusivity over certain subjects, causes, or matters. To know the originality of a Bench is to know its spiritual name, thence, to cognize the times when to invoke its assistance of competent adjudication. If the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of foreign ministers and states, then no other Court can hear a suit except itself, when that suit impanels a foreign minister and a state coincidentally. If the Silofaisan Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of treaties and quo warranto proceedings, then no other Court can hear a suit except itself, when that suit impanels a legislature or a lower-authority courtroom (presumably, for infringements of fundamental or civil Rights). To know these legal facts [Laws] is to know further, that a U.S. District Court has no original Jurisdiction over any suits involving a foreign minister or state, and that a U.S. Court of Appeals has too little originality, because that which the Congress has not given to a District, has glued and adhered itself the mostly to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. and the Silofaisan Supreme Courts, they set the example for good original procedure, because they must, not in Constitution but in Culture. Here again becomes seen the Silofaisan dual-constraint. The Commission is not a wasteful, fancy, or stupid piece-of-paper. It represents rather that a person has earned the public Prerogative to wield a menacing gavel, in order to apply the Truth for a harsh Mercy or a benign Punishment. Justice is fair, clean, or honorable, but those adjectives do not include kind or soft. Justice is harsh, but at least never harsher than the harms which are being already reviewed. This is the tradeoff of any lawyer: just and fair, means sometimes, harsh and equal.
Whereas Abraham Lincoln has become a lawyer by reading the articles of the laws, so every person in the United States, like in the Republic of Silofais, shall be his/her own attorney-at-Equity at least, or a truthteller for the common welfare, as before any intimidating or menacing Court, so that every courtroom would & could do Equity and Law, martially or civilly, criminally or pettily, under the honor of American Due Process and Local Common Sense.
How does every trial occur in the Supreme Court, thus, in all other Courts? It is an easy answer as soon as the words know themselves. In brief: a plaintiff pleads a complaint on information or cause, whereto a defendant responds on belief and honor, and a jury becomes impaneled in order to try the Facts, while the Bench should try the Law and Process, and the Pews should assure an honorable Court. Sometimes no jury appears because the complaint or the response would be too petty, i.e., not criminal enough. Sometimes the plaintiff is the government, and sometimes the defendant is a foreign head-of-state. Always the Bench comprises some pre-commissioned officers, the Bar are the related truthtellers, and the Pews are the interested nonspeakers. Above all: every trial occurs for a Reason by a reasonable Person; and, thence, the only good behavior is vested into the Bench and nowhere else, so that people’s authentic behavior could & should unveil the Truth instead of a Fraud. (Amen.)
To do Justice is to tell the Truth, to incent & reward it, and to punish & disincent Untruth, that is, any perjury or any subornation to perjure. To sit at an original trial, or to sit before the Supreme Court, in either case it is Just to tell the Truth, and to trust that the Court would safeguard anyone whosoever marshals the Mercy of the Truth. The Law matters always less than Doing No Harm and Telling No Lie, so that amendment IX enjoins the Congress by amendment I, from proscribing any cult or its paraphernalia ipso facto, per quod, or per se. (That is why the lawyers shall have their Testifium and its licensing-degrees.) That is why, in Silofais at least, no magistrate shall punish the speakers for telling the message, nor punish the sinners for their sins, but always shall assure the Truth, the Justice, and the honor of Clean Hands and Fair Dealings in the Magistracy of the Union.
The Supreme Court is named so, because its original jurisdiction is supreme, i.e., broad and general. (This references New York and Columbia.) That ought to be the case forever, because all lawyers in every Judiciary deserve to behold, what the U.S. Founders set forth in article III, namely, that a Court is always available and its Bar ever honest, so that everyone would be a friend of the court, even if not a friend of the government.
It is supreme to be an honorable truthteller, no less, the degree of one, who has died for the Truth. It is supreme to hold such Court, as whose commissioned Justices or Tribunes should know well the Truth of religious liberty in general, and of articles V and VI of the U.S. Constitution in particular, namely, that Love & Life shall prevail evermore over Hate & Death, whether in esoteric terminology or poetic street-vernacular.
The Supreme Court is as much supreme as in the names of the People, their Government, and their testifiary Hermeneutics. May every trial do good, be clean, and make honor. May the Supreme Court of Silofais earn their Prerogatives, extol substantive due process, and safeguard the popular wills in political-public actions. May the Foretribune, the Chief Justice, and the Chief Magistrate know better the common sense of their styles, therefore, the common law of their judgeships. May the Constellan preside over them the best, so that their Magistracy-in-Assembly should comprehend well the Grand Forum, its application of Equity and Law, and the People’s Justice.
Thank God for the Supreme Court. Thank Goddess for Truth and Mercy. Thank Gods for the carriages of Justice. Sic semper tyrannis. Ad astra per aspera. E pluribus unum.
Justice is available for all, whilever there must & shall be a just remedy, whereas there is a law.
Amen.