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

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

By Anonymous
“Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” –Martin Luther King Jr.   Last week, I had the pleasure of attending  Professor Zachary D. Kaufman ’s presentation on  Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda  hosted by the  Johannesburg Holocaust & Geno cide Ce ntre . Among the many takeaways highlighted by Professor Kaufman and drawn from  Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy   were ten simple yet profound lessons:   Lesson #1: Hate speech is dangerous.   To illustrate the role that hate speech played in the Rwandan genocide, Professor Kaufman discussed multiple forms of  propaganda , such as Kangura, Radio Rwanda, and RTLM “hate radio.”   He concludes that we must have limits, including with respect to social media, and further asserts that social media must do a better jo...
Post a Comment
Read more