By: Joel Stephen Mattson
There’s a clause in the Constitution so powerful, so ignored, and so weaponized against tyranny that most attorneys never speak of it. But when a Pro Se warrior invokes it — properly, on the record — it cuts through courtroom fraud like a blade through paper.
That clause is Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution.
“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… 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…”
This isn’t a technicality. It’s the supreme framework that defines when, where, and how federal judicial power applies — and when courts are committing fraud under color of law.
Original vs. Appellate Jurisdiction: They’re Hoping You Don’t Know the Difference
Article III distinguishes between two kinds of jurisdiction:
- Original jurisdiction: The court is the first and only one to hear the case.
- Appellate jurisdiction: The court is reviewing a lower court’s decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain limited cases — but more importantly, any Article III court can only hear cases that fall under constitutional scope.
If your case doesn’t arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties — they don’t have jurisdiction.
If a court proceeds without proper Article III subject-matter jurisdiction, it’s acting under color of law, not lawful authority.
“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” – Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974)
State Includes Counties, Cities, and Municipal Corporations
Let’s get something clear: when Article III refers to a “State”, that doesn’t mean just a governor or legislature. It includes every legal subdivision of the State, including:
- Counties
- Cities
- Municipal courts
- Local government officials
Why? Because these entities are creations of the State. They cannot exist independently from the State’s legal identity. Therefore, when Callahan County or City of Clyde files suit against you, it’s not some isolated local action. It’s the State coming after a Citizen.
And under Article III, that makes it a federal controversy with constitutional standing — especially when rights are being violated.
Why Lower Courts Are Mostly Article I, Not Article III
Most people walk into a courtroom and assume they’re in a real judicial court.
But they’re not.
They’re in an administrative tribunal masquerading as a court — a court created under Article I of the Constitution, not Article III.
- Article I courts are legislative courts created by Congress or the State legislature.
- They enforce statutes, codes, and regulations — not constitutional law.
- They rely on your consent to exercise authority over you.
If you don’t know this, they proceed against you by default.
If you challenge jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, the game changes.
What This Means for Pro Se Warriors
If a State (including a county, city, sheriff, or prosecutor) brings a controversy against you — and that controversy involves your rights, your liberty, or your property — you are within the full scope of Article III.
This means:
- You can demand that the case be heard in a constitutional court with Article III authority.
- You can file a challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction.
- You can assert constitutional supremacy over statutes.
- You can refuse administrative rulings that bypass due process.
“If the court is without jurisdiction, its judgment is a nullity.” – Ex parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 604 (1882)
Case Law That Reinforces Article III Power
Let’s destroy the illusion with case law:
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998):“Without jurisdiction, the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”
- Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F.2d 906 (10th Cir. 1974):“Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.”
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (1974):“Jurisdiction must be apparent on the record of the court.”
How They Trick You into Waiving Article III Protections
They don’t outright say, “You’re in an Article I court.”
Instead, they:
- Refer to the NAME in all caps
- Ask, “Do you understand the charges?”
- Expect silent acceptance of their process
- Enforce rules of procedure rather than law
Every time you comply, you consent.
But once you say:
“Objection: I challenge subject-matter jurisdiction. I require proof that this court is proceeding under Article III authority as required by the Constitution.”
Now you’ve invoked a constitutional clause that demands an answer — and they don’t have one.
Why This Destroys 90% of Their Authority
If the court cannot show:
- Constitutional standing
- Judicial authority from Article III
- Proof that the controversy involves valid law under the Constitution
…then the court is a fiction. It is a corporate entity enforcing corporate policy under color of law.
“Color of law is not law. It is the appearance of law without lawful authority.”
Article III, Section 2 destroys the appearance and demands real authority.
Your Tactical Application
When you’re in court — or responding to one — here’s what to do:
- File a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Article III Jurisdiction.
- Submit an Affidavit of Status stating you are a private Citizen, not subject to administrative code.
- Demand proof of standing under Article III.
- Refuse to proceed unless the court confirms Article III authority.
- Cite this clause explicitly: Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Use it in writing. Say it aloud. Enter it into the record.
They will scramble. They will threaten. But they will not produce the jurisdiction you asked for.
What Others Have Done to Win Their Case
- A man in Missouri got a traffic citation thrown out after demanding Article III jurisdiction and refusing to proceed in a municipal court.
- A homeowner in Florida blocked foreclosure by forcing the bank’s attorney to admit the court was administrative.
- Multiple Pro Se litigants have used Article III jurisdictional challenges to escalate state violations into federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Because once you challenge jurisdiction successfully — everything that followed becomes void.
Final Thought: The Clause That Shatters the Illusion
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 isn’t obscure. It isn’t vague. It’s crystal clear constitutional law that most attorneys are too scared to invoke — and most courts are terrified you’ll discover.
If a State — or one of its agents, agencies, counties, or cities — brings a controversy against you, and it violates your rights under the Constitution, that controversy belongs in a court with real judicial power.
Not a code court. Not a tribunal. Not a kangaroo circus.
An Article III court.
You are the one who must invoke it.
You are the one who must challenge them.
And when you do — their whole system begins to collapse.