T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶63

When the Founders deliberated about whether to replace the Articles with the Constitution, all maintained the same view about the nature of appellate jurisdiction. At that time, different “technical sense[s] ha[d] been affixed to the term ‘appellate’” such that any technical interpretation would “not be understood in the same sense” in different jurisdictions. The Federalist No. 81, pp. 488–489 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). That fact showed “the impropriety of a technical interpretation.” Id., at 489; accord, ante, at 10. Instead, the Federalists thought that the term “appellate jurisdiction” in the proposed Constitution “denotes nothing more than the power of one tribunal to review the proceedings of another, either as to the law or fact, or both.” The Federalist No. 81, at 489. For their part, the Anti-Federalists seemed to agree. They worried that “appellate jurisdiction,” as…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.