Whether the challenge that a jurist is not an Article III judge because she or he does not have 'good behaviour' tenure is a jurisdictional one which must be considered by federal courts and judges

QUESTION PRESENTED Throughout history people have struggled to obtain justice. This quest directly led to the Separation of Powers doctrine which requires our federal government to have a judicial branch composed of independent judges who are responsible for exercising judicial power within the scope of their delegated jurisdictions. By the end of the Twentieth Century there appeared to be general consensus among civilized nations that “(t]he independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country.” Principle 1. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985)!. This case presents the question for federal courts and judges in the United States as to: Whether the challenge that a jurist is not an Article IIT judge because she or he does not have “good behaviour”? tenure is a . jurisdictional one which must be considered by federal courts and judges. 1 Endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985 ; ? Courts sometimes refer to the “good behaviour” tenure language in Article III as being life tenure because unless a judge misbehaves and is impeached or gives up their ; good behaviour tenure she or he can remain in office for life. See e.g. Wellness Int Network, Lid. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1938. (2015) Id. at 1951 Roberts, CJ. Dissenting @ ® ii