Melvin Watt: “I understand the historical reason that it was done. In fact, it was done because the Court of Federal Claims could have…”

“I understand the historical reason that it was done. In fact, it was done because the Court of Federal Claims could have jurisdiction over the claims part of an issue, but they did not have the constitutional authority to declare statutes unconstitutional. So the reason that we have this two-party arrangement now, where the Court of Federal Claims has part of the jurisdiction and the U.S. District Court has part of the jurisdiction, is for the very constitutional reason that I am offering this amendment. But both of us agree that that should be eliminated. This is not about taking jurisdiction away from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. I would love for them to have jurisdiction over this matter. If they had the constitutional authority to deal with it, it would not matter to me who had jurisdiction over the issue. So why are we here? We are trying to find a solution which is a constitutional solution.”