For something far outside the box, build a rocket using your free 360!! Hack up the graphics processor for missile guidance [borrowing from the PS2 hype]. And guide your missile with your controller... no really, there's precedent. No, this project won't happen anytime soon. Yes, we all wish it would!

The quote sums up the DRM attitude: "If I could snap my fingers and give myself [] absolute control..., I would". Hell, absolute control sounds pretty appealing to me, too! But, often taking control means wresting it from the hands of others. Those who seek to control absolutely, absolutely should not!

The argument (weak and unpopular) is that these specialized courts are hand-offs from the legislative branch to the judicial of constitutional obligations or powers of the legislative branch alone. Basically, the legislature makes these broad factual inquiries and should be tasked with determining our regulatory position. They should not be passing off inherently law-making tasks to adjudicative bodies, such as the court.

Let me begin by thanking you for pointing out my glaring error that the argument stems not from Article 2, but Article 3. I apologize for that mistake.

Section 1 vests the Judicial Power in BOTH the Supreme Court and the inferior courts. The subject "judicial power" acts through the verb "vests" on both objects "Supreme Courts" and "inferior courts". It can be read, as I believe you read it, to be one power, divided or shared between the two courts. I read it to vest completely the Judicial Power in each court. A great argument to counter my own interpretation is that Article 1 vests the Legislative power in the Congress, but we know the Senate and the House have divided roles.

Ultimately, history supports your interpretation. Additionally, you are correct that inferior court is not well defined. But, your position is strengthened by the word inferior itself. How could a court hold equal power with the Supreme Court and remain inferior? Under my interpretation, inferiority refers to subjugation of the lower courts by decisions of higher courts. Once again, though, the practices immediately following the Court's founding and its modern practices as well do not support my position.

Despite all of this, I believe that "special courts" created by Congress violate the spirit of the Constitution, because they effectively hand off legislative decisions to the "special courts" and give them the effect of judicial decisions. Ultimately, for me, this is a separation of powers issue. Again, though, an argument for the spirit of the document is weak when up against its own words and people who have acted consistently with your interpretation.

I'm on the losing end of this argument, but I have long believed that special courts such as this one are unconstitutional usurpations of Article 2 courts which have "the Judicial power" and that power cannot be passed onto special courts whose purview is less than the entire judicial power. While this argument is perhaps a century or two too late, unconstitutional acts are still unconstitutional, despite centuries of adherence to them. The stack of people who will disagree with this comment is likely huge, but just because we've always had "Bankruptcy" Courts doesn't mean that their existence directly contradicts the clear meaning of Article 2 which stated that the judicial power would go to the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress shall from time to time create. Yes, Congress could make no courts. But, ANY court created must possess the ENTIRE judicial power and not be a limited or "special" court. When you see "special court", read "unconstitutional court." Tunester