Amendment 11: Lawsuits against states
This amendment makes it impossible for a citizen of one state to sue another state in federal court. The amendment resulted from the 1793 case of Chisholm v. Georgia, in which a man from South Carolina sued the state of Georgia over an inheritance. Georgia argued that it could not be sued in federal court, but the Supreme Court ruled that the state could be. Georgia then led a movement to adopt this amendment. However, individuals can still sue state authorities in federal court for depriving them of their constitutional rights.
2007-02-08 04:35:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Barbara V 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
“It is part of our history, that, at the adoption of the Constitution, all the States were greatly indebted; and the apprehension that these debts might be prosecuted in the Federal courts formed a very serious objection to that instrument. Suits were instituted; and the court maintained its jurisdiction. The alarm was general; and to quiet the apprehensions that were so extensively entertained, this amendment was proposed in Congress, and adopted by the State legislatures.”
Re: Cohens v. Virginia [1821].
“The Eleventh Amendment was proposed, almost unanimously, at the first meeting of Congress after the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, which held that a State was liable to be sued by a citizen of another State or of a foreign country.”
“This amendment, expressing the will of the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all courts, actually reversed the decision of the Supreme Court.”
Re: Hans v. Louisiana.
The very object and purpose of the Eleventh Amendment were to prevent the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties. It was thought to be neither becoming nor convenient that the several States of the Union, invested with that large residium of sovereignty which had not been delegated to the United States, should be summoned as defendants to answer complaints of private persons, whether citizens of other States or aliens, or that the course of their public policy and the administration of their public affairs should be subject to and controlled by the mandates of judicial tribunals without their consent, and in favor of individual interests.”
Re: Ex parte Ayers [1887]
The Amendment to the United States Constitution, added in 1798, which provides that the judicial power of the United States shall not extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.
Re: Black’s Law Dictionary.
2007-02-08 04:55:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by Randy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
it relatively is a ability by means of which the FCC can threaten the license holders with fines or revocation in the event that they do no longer basically like the content cloth of the declares. it relatively is a contravention of constitutional rights. Joe Animal: Do YOUR homework. you are not getting it.
2016-12-17 12:13:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋