"SOME EFFECTUAL POWER": THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF DECISIONMAKING THAT ARTICLE III AND THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE DEMAND OF THE FEDERAL COURTS

"Based on a new study of the compromises that produced the texts of Article III and the Supremacy Clause, and a new synthesis of classic Federal Courts cases, this Article concludes that the principal mechanism for keeping national law supreme over contrary state law is not an assured "quantity" of federal jurisdiction but an assured "quality" of federal judging when Congress confers jurisdiction. "The judicial Power" encompasses five qualitative means to the overriding goal of national legal supremacy: Article III courts must decide (1) the whole federal question (2) independently and (3) finally, based on (4) the whole supreme law, and (5) impose a remedy that effectuates that supreme law and neutralizes contrary law. Under these principles, the qualified immunity and" Teague v. Lane "doctrines, and one reading of section 2254(d)(1) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, are constitutional, but three circuit courts' alternative reading of section 2254(d)(1) is" unconstitutional.