The "Madisonian Compromise" is Bunk

This post is specifically for people who are Federal Courts geeks, like me. If you don't know anything about Fed Courts, or don't care, I will not be insulted if you stop reading right here.

My issue is with the so-called "Madisonian Compromise Argument," harped on by originalists and certain professors. The argument goes like this: (1) Under the "Madisonian Compromise," the Constitution created only the Supreme Court, and left it in the hands of Congress to "from time to time ordain and establish" any other federal courts. (2) Therefore, the Constitution did not anticipate there needing to be any lower federal courts. (3) The Constitution should be interpreted in such a way that would be compatible with there being no lower federal courts. This, in turn, leads to all sorts of bizarre interpretations of various constitutional provisions, including the Suspension Clause, the 10th Amendment, and various jurisdictional issues.

There are, as I see it, four reasons why this argument doesn't work.