|
1
|
that other departments of the Commission are considering
|
|
2
|
situations in which the Supreme Court would have original
|
|
3
|
jurisdiction, as for instance in apportionment cases.
|
|
4
|
JUDGE PROCTOR: This very draft gives this.
|
|
5
|
jurisdiction to remove judicial, which is something other
|
|
6
|
than appellate, and the present Constitution says, as now
|
|
7
|
is, and may be. What do you have as now is?
|
|
8
|
MR. ENEY: One of the general rules that we
|
|
9
|
are trying to follow in the Commission, and I forgot to
|
|
10
|
mention earlier, is that we are striving to avoid every
|
|
11
|
statement anywhere in the Constitution which incorporates
|
|
12
|
unspecified provisions of the law as they stand at the
|
|
13
|
time so that we will not use any phrases such as juris-
|
|
14
|
diction now conferrable or such as is now. the law or any-
|
|
15
|
thing of the sort, so that you can get everything needed
|
|
16
|
in the Constitution and not have to refer to some other
|
|
17
|
source.
|
|
18
|
JUDGE CLAPP: The problem that has been run
|
|
19
|
into in code States, unless you can find something in the
|
|
20
|
Constitution, it may well be prohibited.
|
|
21
|
MR. ENEY: No, because of the general rule
|
