Skip to main content

“These Go to Eleven”

By


On February 7, 1795 the required three-fourths of the states ratified what would become the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution (although it wasn’t declared part of the Constitution until January 8, 1798). The Eleventh amendment to the Constitution is obviously the first amendment added to the Constitution after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and began the true amending of the Constitution. From this point forward the Constitution would be amended to cure oversights and problems unanticipated by the Constitution’s drafters. The history of this amendment shows that the new nation was slowly maturing. 

The Eleventh Amendment was conceived as a response to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia (2 U.S. 419 (1793)). After the Revolutionary War Alexander Chisholm, representing the estate of Robert Farquhar, filed a lawsuit against the state of Georgia for unpaid debts incurred for supplies purchased during the recently ended war. Many other states owed money for war debts and they were nervous if Chisholm won his case in federal court.  The question of whether Chisholm could sue in federal court went to the Supreme Court. Georgia was so upset at being hauled into court that they didn’t even send a lawyer to represent them. The court held for Chisholm, allowing him to sue, and a landslide of lawsuits were filed against a variety of states. 

Congress realized this result could potentially bankrupt the states and took action. The Chisholm case was decided on February 18, 1793; on March 4, 1794 Congress sent an amendment to the states for ratification. The final state voted for ratification on February 7, 1795. 

Although the Eleventh Amendment’s immediate purpose was overturning Chisholm, it also acted to clarify federal court jurisdiction as laid out in Article III of the Constitution and in a way ratified the sovereign immunity of the States.  Citizens of one state can’t use the federal court system to sue the government of another state. Foreign citizen can’t use federal courts to sue a state government. A state government can’t be forced into federal court against its will; being a sovereign it can only be sued if it consents to the lawsuit. 

While the Eleventh Amendment may seem obscure, and not as sexy as those that make up the Bill of Rights of the Civil War amendments, its implications are far reaching in the areas of federalism and federal jurisdiction. Take some time today to celebrate the Eleventh Amendment, because after all, it’s bigger than ten.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le...
1 comment
Read more

This Day in Legal History -- Roy Cohn

By
Big lawyers have big personalities, and few had as big a personality as Roy Cohn who was born on this day in New York City in 1927. Cohn’s career was spent in the Washington DC—New York axis, famous in the press for his legal and social exploits, his list of famous and infamous clients, and as the poster-boy for every stereotype of the dishonest grasping lawyer. The legal career of Roy Cohn is an object lesson on the use, and abuse, of the lawyer’s power. Roy Cohn was born on February 20, 1927 in New York City. His father was a justice in the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court and was well connected politically. These connections, along with a precocious intelligence which allowed him to graduate from Columbia law school at age 20, paved the way for a bright legal career. Cohn’s first job (after waiting until he turned 21 to be admitted to the bar) was as an assistant U.S. Attorney in New York. He first came to prominence in his role as a prosecutor in the Rosenberg espi...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Bar Exam: Some History & Comparison

By Lauren Schroeder
It's that time of year again...time for two to three days of squeezing out all the material that hopeful lawyers have been pounding into their heads over several months - the bar exam. To mark the occasion, here is a brief history of the exam itself, as well as a taste of what is required to become an attorney elsewhere. Prior to the mid-1800s, there were no written bar exams. Instead, the path to becoming a lawyer led hopefuls through "apprenticeships, self-directed reading, and oral examinations." The next phase made use of a diploma privilege, which remained until the ABA began requiring exams in the 1920s. (A diploma privilege does still exist in Wisconsin, however.) The first state to employ a written version of the bar exam was Massachusetts, in 1855. (See Riebe, A Bar Review for Law Schools: Getting Students on Board to Pass Their Bar Exams , 45 Brandeis L. J. 269 (2007) for quoted material and historical information.) Bar exams consisted only of essays until...
Post a Comment
Read more