<P> Secondly, the Court has interpreted the clause as limiting Congress' ability to confer jurisdiction on federal courts . It does so by establishing an outer limit of the types of matters within which Congress may constitutionally confer jurisdiction . Historically, the Court has not interpreted this Clause to limit Congressional power to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts . </P> <P> The delicate phrasing of the Clause and the ambiguity of the terms therein has inspired frequent academic debate . Though the Supreme Court has given much attention to the legal issues arising from this provision of the Constitution, many problematic issues remain unresolved . Critics argue that the standing requirements imposed by this Clause enable judges to avoid difficult issues, decide the merits of a case before the parties have had a fair opportunity to litigate, and avoid the necessity of applying law the judge finds distasteful . </P> <P> Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: </P> <P> The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects . </P>

Who has the power to resolve issues involving laws of the constitution