Repeal the Eleventh Amendment?

[Jim B.]

Has the time come to repeal the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution?

In case you don't know, this deals with the sometimes horribly unfair doctrine of sovereign immunity. I know prosecutors enjoy something similiar called prosecutorial immunity. Basically US prosecutors can murder, lie, steal and pillage, as long as they do it under color of law. Disgusting, no?

Actually, for those purists among you who make an argument for it, we can also do something like what Canada did in their constitution. Don't do away with it altogether, just limit it (in this case avoiding situations where public order may be compromised).

Yeah, I know you rarely hear about this subject anymore. But I do feel strongly about it (I even started a petition here, with MoveOn.org). I realize the power of this amendment has been limited by the argument it is a right the sovereign can waive, like any right. But I don't believe the amendment should even exist to begin with. And I worry conservative judges may argue against this even.

Well, what do the rest of you think?

[Age Quod Agis]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

Has the time come to repeal the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution?

In case you don't know, this deals with the sometimes horribly unfair doctrine of sovereign immunity. I know prosecutors enjoy something similiar called prosecutorial immunity. Basically US prosecutors can murder, lie, steal and pillage, as long as they do it under color of law. Disgusting, no?

There seems to be some confusion in the OP.

First, the 11th Amendment deals with a specific type of sovereign immunity. Specifically, it specifies that states are immune from being sued by citizens of other states or foreign countries. It doesn't deal with the federal government, nor does it deal with states being sued by their own citizens. Here's the text of the 11th Amendment:

Originally Posted by 11th Amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to 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.

Second, the principle of sovereign immunity does not derive from the 11th Amendment. It derives from common law. In other words, it's essentially a long-standing tradition of law that governments can't be sued by their citizens, unless they give permission to do so. So repealing the 11th Amendment won't get rid of sovereign immunity. It will just make it possible for citizens of (for example) California to sue the State of New York. Citizens of (for example) California will still have the same limits on their ability to sue the federal government or the State of California.

Third, prosecutorial immunity does nothing like giving prosecutors the ability to "murder, lie, steal and pillage, as long as they do it under color of law." Here's a link to the case of Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490 (D.C. Cir. 1893). I'd suggest that you read that case because it does a good job of laying out the justifications and bases of prosecutorial immunity. In short, there are two kinds of prosecutorial immunity: absolute immunity, and qualified immunity. As stated by the Court in Gray, absolute immunity is limited to "initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case."

Originally Posted by Gray v. Bell

In Imbler v. Pachtman, the Supreme Court, in an explicitly limited holding, ruled that "the prosecutor is immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983" in "initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case." 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. at 994. These activities, the Court observed, are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and thus [are] functions to which the reasons for absolute immunity apply with full force." Id. at 430, 96 S.Ct. at 995.
...
[A] prosecutor receives absolute immunity only when he acts as an "advocate," that is, in his role as a participant in the judicial phase of the criminal process. When a prosecutor acts in any other capacity, the rationale for absolute immunity dissolves and the prosecutor receives only the lesser, qualified immunity ....

Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and protects the defendant/prosecutor only if he/she can show that his/her actions "did not contravene clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in his position should have known." In other words, you don't get prosecutorial immunity for murder, stealing, or pillaging. (There may be prosecutorial immunity for lying in the course of presenting the State's case, but that's debatable.)

Originally Posted by JimB.

Actually, for those purists among you who make an argument for it, we can also do something like what Canada did in their constitution. Don't do away with it altogether, just limit it (in this case avoiding situations where public order may be compromised).

The doctrine of sovereign immunity has been limited in the U.S. For example, Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act. Under the FTCA, "[t]he United States [is] liable . . . in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but [is not] liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages." 28 U.S.C. § 2674. There's also a Tucker Act, which waives federal immunity for claims arising out of contracts in which the U.S. is a party. And (I believe) every state has its own version of the FTCA, which waives the state's immunity for tortious acts.

Notably, even before those acts were passed, private citizens could get redress for injuries caused by the government under what were known as "private bills." The FTCA was intended to make that process of gaining redress easier and less onerous.

Originally Posted by JimB

I realize the power of this amendment has been limited by the argument it is a right the sovereign can waive, like any right. But I don't believe the amendment should even exist to begin with. And I worry conservative judges may argue against this even.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you suggesting that a conservative judge would refuse to enforce a Constitutional amendment repealing the 11th Amendment? Or that conservative judges would refuse to enforce statutes limiting sovereign immunity? Because the FTCA and Tucker Act seem to still be going strong. Can you clarify?

[Northern Piper]

Further, the 11th Amendment only applies to suits in Federal Courts - it does not apply to suits brought against states in state courts.

By the way, Jim B, can you point out what part of Canada's Constitution you think is relevant to the discussion, rather than just linking the entire Constitution Act, 1982? What section are you meaning to refer to?

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Further, the 11th Amendment only applies to suits in Federal Courts - it does not apply to suits brought against states in state courts.

But states can assert sovereign immunity in cases brought against them in their own courts.

It would be reasonable to say that the 11th Amendment bars the use of the federal courts as a way around the sovereign immunity of states. Indeed, I think that's what it was intended to do.

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by Age Quod Agis

Notably, even before those acts were passed, private citizens could get redress for injuries caused by the government under what were known as "private bills." The FTCA was intended to make that process of gaining redress easier and less onerous. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Are you suggesting that a conservative judge would refuse to enforce a Constitutional amendment repealing the 11th Amendment? Or that conservative judges would refuse to enforce statutes limiting sovereign immunity? Because the FTCA and Tucker Act seem to still be going strong. Can you clarify?

I have to admit, I was just assuming. But if you read the actual amendment, it goes

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity...

IANAL, but I just thought some conservative judge would read that to mean, the judicial power of the US shall not extend to "any" suit. I have to admit, I was just assuming. I didn't actually read this somewhere. But that is what it says, though.

[Jim B.]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Further, the 11th Amendment only applies to suits in Federal Courts - it does not apply to suits brought against states in state courts.

By the way, Jim B, can you point out what part of Canada's Constitution you think is relevant to the discussion, rather than just linking the entire Constitution Act, 1982? What section are you meaning to refer to?

I thought this section of the Canadian Constitution is relevant:

Enforcement

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

That at least is my interpretation of it. I also have to admit I haven't looked at the Canadian constitution for some time. And I was basing my assumptions on what I once read.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Age Quod Agis

First, the 11th Amendment deals with a specific type of sovereign immunity. Specifically, it specifies that states are immune from being sued by citizens of other states or foreign countries.

No, it doesn't, it only says states can't be sued by citizens, etc., in federal court.

Who ever thought that was a good idea?! Serious question.

[Age Quod Agis]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

No, it doesn't, it only says states can't be sued by citizens, etc., in federal court.

Tom Tildrum has already addressed this point very well.

Who ever thought that was a good idea?! Serious question.

Not sure what "that" you're referring to.

If you're asking who thought the 11th Amendment was a good idea, well, the answer is Congress and 13 (of the original 15) states.

If you're asking who thought suing other states in federal court was a good idea, the 11th Amendment appears to have been a reaction to the case of Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In that case, a citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia for payments owed in connection with supplies during the Revolutionary War. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that citizens could sue other states in federal court, since they weren't subject to that state's sovereign immunity.

[Coffeenut451]

I understand the 11th to be a protection for the citizens of the states against federal intrusion in court cases. Honestly, though, I don't really understand it. Will someone who has specific evidence of the historical situation of the time, shed some light on this, because it seems like it specifies, "federal courts, keep out of state affairs", in which case that would be be good, wouldn't it, what with all of the federal intrusion we seem to have in our lives. I mean, I'd love to repeal the 16th amendment, but only if we could limit the states from overtaxing us.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Coffeenut451

I understand the 11th to be a protection for the citizens of the states against federal intrusion in court cases. Honestly, though, I don't really understand it. Will someone who has specific evidence of the historical situation of the time, shed some light on this, because it seems like it specifies, "federal courts, keep out of state affairs", in which case that would be be good, wouldn't it, what with all of the federal intrusion we seem to have in our lives. I mean, I'd love to repeal the 16th amendment, but only if we could limit the states from overtaxing us.

It's not "federal courts, keep out of state affairs." It's "federal courts, keep out of affairs between states and citizens of other states."

The passage of the 11th Amendment was a direct result of Chisholm v. Georgia, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that federal courts had jurisdiction over suits against states by citizens of other states based on Article III, §2 of the Constitution.

In effect, it removed "between a state and citizens of another state" from Article III.

[Northern Piper]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

I thought this section of the Canadian Constitution is relevant:

That at least is my interpretation of it. I also have to admit I haven't looked at the Canadian constitution for some time. And I was basing my assumptions on what I once read.

Thanks for the clarification. First, the context of federal court jurisdiction in Canada is completely different than in the US. The provinces can't be sued in Canada's Federal Court. There's no equivalent to diversity jurisdiction and no equivalent to the 11th Amendment.

Second, my understanding is that even if the 11th Amendment bars suits in federal court against the states, the principle of sovereign immunity doesn't extend to state officials, so you can sue state officials (e.g. prison wardens, the state Attorney General or Governor) in federal court, so as a practical matter, sovereign immunity is not much of a bar to seeking relief against the states in federal court.

Third, in Canada the provinces do have sovereign immunity for matters other than constitutional law. Section 24 only applies to constitutional remedies, not ordinary civil law matters such as contract and tort claims. Now, as practical matter, the federal and provincial governments have passed statutes waiving sovereign immunity, but that is a matter of legislative policy, not tied to s. 24.

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

...so as a practical matter, sovereign immunity is not much of a bar to seeking relief against the states in federal court.

That may depend upon whether one is seeking an injunction or damages.

[Northern Piper]

I think we're on the same page there as well - in Canada, the general rule is that in civil actions against the Crown, a plaintiff can get damages but not an injunction. Is that how it works in the US? (aside from that "Crown" thingie, of course .)

[repealthe11thamendment]

As for the "purists," they are beneficiary's of immunity in some way. Their "over-deterrence theory" is just that, "theory" and is uncogent to rule as law.

Anybody who analyzes the doctrine of immunity without its History, paper trail to the dark ages, and the use of basic logic from Aristotle, cannot be taken serious in the discussion. This is because "state immunity is a description of violation of human rights." Thus, uncogent, or unsound policy, like the 11th, harms humans under the elements of discrimination, cannot be made law! Purists that support it where Hitler, Stalin, etc...

[Really Not All That Bright]

So, are you for or against?

[repealthe11thamendment]

First of all, " Age Quod Agis, is following a pattern of conduct used by defenders of immunity, or prosecutors, and that is "fundamentally misconstruing facts." It is the use of fallacy persuade those who are not are of a subject matter.

I cover most of the history about this at www.repealthe11thamendment.com or www.occupyplacerville.com

As a victim of abuse of power for reporting criminal violence against a friend of the D.A., we witnessed "Free Speech retaliation" that would not have happened, "but for" our objections, (see "but for test" S. Ct). We saw this same D.A. do it to another man, John O'Sullivan, as the D.A. ignored O'Sullivan's rational calls for police, because the perpetrator was a "retired Sherriff," who the D.A. was favoring, and this is called "arbitrary classification" which is illegal unless the D.A. can provide a rational basis.

Not one individual here, especially Age Quod Agis, has a clue what this doctrine is. For instance, I will not waste much time on Agis's seemingly knowledgeable use of citations, but his statement, " It doesn't deal with the federal government, nor does it deal with states being sued by their own citizens," The 11th, amendment is "Constitutional" federal law, and it deals with Sovereign immunity for Federal and State, and Qualified immunity for local gov., See Monell v. New York, or Bogan v. Scott Harris, inter alia.

For instance, Hans v. Louisiana in 1890 turned the amendment meaning completely upside down, stating that "citizens cannot sue their own states," means exactly that of the original verbiage. So This guy Agis, fails miserably, yet creates a treatise of dicta that would full any fool.

I cannot comment on Agis any further, as I am ashamed by this rhetoric, as his use of or should I say misuse of, deceives the masses into accepting paradigm reality that mostly ended with the inquisitions after Copernicus destroyed Ptolemy's junk religious science that birthed the "doctrine of immunity" required to justify atrocity as "self righteous" entitlement from Divinity. Those of you who follow the "non sequitur" logic of Agis, are no different from Witch Burners, inquisitors, or Adolf Hitler, whose rise in power could only be allowed through 11th amendment type immunity, once he took power.

The 11th amendment cultivates corruption, and the over-deterrence theory admits this cultivation, in the same breath those who benefit by it, defend it with nonsense, unproven theory. Never has a nation, ruled without the Doctrine of Immunity, with exception from the United States from 1776 until 1795 when the Doctrine was ratified, so how can they possibly know that without immunity, a nation would colapse. I encourage you to read about "extractive institutions" in a new book called "why nations fail."

[Tom Tildrum]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I think we're on the same page there as well - in Canada, the general rule is that in civil actions against the Crown, a plaintiff can get damages but not an injunction. Is that how it works in the US? (aside from that "Crown" thingie, of course .)

Sorry for missing this back when you first wrote it. Actually, I think it's the other way around in the US. One can in effect sue states for injunctive relief by naming relevant state officials in their official capacity, but one cannot sue for damages in this way.

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

I think we're on the same page there as well - in Canada, the general rule is that in civil actions against the Crown, a plaintiff can get damages but not an injunction. Is that how it works in the US? (aside from that "Crown" thingie, of course .)

That "crown thingy" is and solely the authority that defines the word "sovereign." So, there ya go, USA officials by manipulating and misconstruing fact, have created for themselves a crown to claim "sovereign immunity," a delusion of grandeur made into reality for public officials, ironically the so called democracy has no knowledge of this, and when they are presented the idea, they cannot look up simple words in the dictionary to see where they belong.

Definition of SOVEREIGNTY
1
obsolete: supreme excellence or an example of it
2
a: supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control : autonomy c: controlling influence
3
: one that is sovereign; especially: an autonomous state
See sovereignty defined for English-language learners »
See sovereignty defined for kids »

In 1999 the supreme court stated USA is a sovereign government, explained below, and nobody objected.

IN the US you can get injunctions, even against judges, because immunity is only for personal liability suits, but according to the S. Ct. Bogan v. Scott-Harris, they mention, allude to, that immunity is for protecting public employees whose decisions that affect "wide reaching" citizens' in policy, and not individual abuses, that are limited to singling out individuals.

For a good explanation see Kaahumanu v. City of Maui 9th 2005, and More recent Ninth circ. see, Norse v. Santa Cruz 2010, and the S.Ct. rejected county appeal, so it stands, that "ad hoc" decisions that deny property rights or use of intangible services, that do not affect the rest of the community, abrogate immunity.

Problem is, only Maui and Santa Cruz has been told this, and even if they ignore this, in the future, there is no deterrence to keep counties or judges from ignoring precedence. When they abuse discretion it is not punitive, only "reversible error."

So what do we do? We have to end the 11th amendment, because it is their basis to deny the First Amendment right to redress. That alone is suspect. How can one amendment be used to over-rule another one, and still be a "constitution?" Bogan v. Scott-Harris in 1998 said that "even if corrupt...the law will not tolerate a citizen redress...." Well, there ya go! No First Amendment, due to the 11th amendment.

I have sued in federal court our county. What the fed court did, was to use a non article III judge to abuse process, and give the Article III judge plausible deniability for the abuse done by the Magistrate. What proof do I have? The Court record, res ipsa loquitur. I alleged a first amendment retaliation claim, which was a "prima facie claim" supported by judicially noticeable evidence provided by the state itself, a "state senator" with his seal. But the defense ignored that claim and substituted it for another premise found in dicta, that was clearly not the "substantial motivating factor" of our claim. In fact the first amendment claim was stated...and we alleged, "it was the SUBSTANTIAL MOTIVATING FACTOR." Therefore, after 3 years of objections were ignored, it was obvious that we were undergoing a "mock trial" by a magistrate through "Judicial Tyranny" identified by the Declaration of Independence as a "right inestimable and formidable for tyrants only."

So you see, today, Sovereign power is not democracy, and democracy can only stand alone! Put Sovereignty in the picture, and you have a King or Queen, elected every 2 or 4 years, but immune by sovereign divine right, a religious dogma, and that violates seperation of church and state, and that is not a slippery slope. Sovereign means a King or Queen! It does not refer to a democracy.

In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled against an author of the writing, in charge of framing the Constitution, James Wilson, who spoke as a Supreme Court Justice stating, "as an author of the document...to the constitution the word sovereign is totally unknown." Eye witness, according to the evidence code can convict murderers to death! Justice Souter, 35 times referenced Chisholm v. Georgia 1793, where Wilson, as an eye witness, stated it was a "perversion of genus species," to ignore the patriots of the revolution who gave their lives so that "sovereignty" was banned from the USA, the citizen reward for their sacrifice brought on by risk of committing treason against a tyrant King George III.

Okay, what are you who are making up your own opinions about the 11th amendment not getting?

Our supreme court is a band of traitors who insist that the USA is governed ultimately under sovereign rule, see Alden v. Maine 1999! Democracy or our fallacy belief that we are a democracy in the USA is only supported by those whose intelligence ability is not able to discern simple fact, or follow a paper trail that is indisputable. What is to gain? Forgiveness from negligence and corruption, an inequality between public and private citizens, that again ruins the 14th amendment, because inequality cannot be tolerated, according to the 14th amendment. If you want the 11th amendment, at least remove the 14th, because the Constitution only uses the word equal a few time, regarding the share of votes in houses of government.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

By the way, Jim B, can you point out what part of Canada's Constitution you think is relevant to the discussion, rather than just linking the entire Constitution Act, 1982? What section are you meaning to refer to?

Hey, it's all good, baby....

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

Sorry for missing this back when you first wrote it. Actually, I think it's the other way around in the US. One can in effect sue states for injunctive relief by naming relevant state officials in their official capacity, but one cannot sue for damages in this way.

Exactly, however, the consensus is, from a former site, "disparate treatment of pro se litigants," Sean Harrington, courts are misconstruing facts of cases and dismissing them, even if they show facts where officials abrogated immunity.

Eastern District Court Sacramento case 2:08-cv-02269-kjm-EFB Magistrate, ignored 28 USC 636(b)(1)(a) and ruled on an injunction dismissing it, without the authority to do so. "a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief,..."

So even if you can sue or not, the courts are ignoring the complaints and fixing the malice of officials who should be indicted in the first place.

Bogan v. Scott-Harris states that "if corrupt...the indict them." However, judges are thinking of their careers and barring citizen redress under the 11th amendment, no matter what it actually means.

It must be repealed!

[BigAppleBucky]

Except for the 2nd amendment, the Bill of Rights is basically a dead letter these days. Don't neeed to repeal sections of the Constitution any more.

[repealthe11thamendment]

quote;
Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and protects the defendant/prosecutor only if he/she can show that his/her actions "did not contravene clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in his position should have known." In other words, you don't get prosecutorial immunity for murder, stealing, or pillaging. (There may be prosecutorial immunity for lying in the course of presenting the State's case, but that's debatable.)

qualified immunity, more accurately is an affirmative defense that only municipalities can use. It weakens sovereign immunity held by the feds and state, therefore Feds are involved, sorry Agis, but you should delete your interpretation, it is baseless and full of fallacy and error. It does not derive from common law, it derives from "divine given authority to be free from question of subjects of a Sovereign Ruler, referred to not as King George III, but a "despot." They didn't want people, like you have done, to misconstrue despotism as a good idea but abused by King George III. Without Despotism you remove the jus cogens "doctrine of immunity" and you have the USA, from 1776 to 1795. So in a sense you are right, in that common law was rule by England, and we ended it. The 11th amendment is England, but term limited for 2 to 4 years, a fallacy that tricks the mind into believing we have a democracy

But google, "can prosecutors frame defendants," and there are many reasons this happens, the most arbitrary is to win, but by sociopathic prosecutors who just don't care about human life, as long as they win.

see LA Times http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan...nduct-20110110

Thompson v. Connick, that's right, Harry Connick Jr. gran pappy is a crooked prosecutor, according to the case. 30 days before execution date, blood type freed the death row Thompson, and 5 prosecutors hid this from the very start. One prosecutor made a death bed confession, and it was hid.

Then the Pottowamie case.

all stemming from the "doctrine of Immunity," what the declaration called a "right inestimable and formidable for tyrants."

[Really Not All That Bright]

repealthe11thamendment, you might have more luck convincing people if you post in English.

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Northern Piper

Further, the 11th Amendment only applies to suits in Federal Courts - it does not apply to suits brought against states in state courts.

By the way, Jim B, can you point out what part of Canada's Constitution you think is relevant to the discussion, rather than just linking the entire Constitution Act, 1982? What section are you meaning to refer to?

Ha that is hilarious! If you can apply the 11th amendment defense in federal courts you can apply it state courts, but never vice versa, something called the Primacy clause I think.

Federal and state can be sued for injunctive relief, and also for punitive damages, if their offenses are "ad hoc" and do not affect policy that affects "far reaching" "everyone." Seen US Bogan v. Scott, and a good explanation Norse v. Santa Cruz, referencing Kaahumanu v. City of Maui 2005.

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

repealthe11thamendment, you might have more luck convincing people if you post in English.

Typical of the socialist or conservative thug who cannot defend the eleventh amendment with rationality, because they love abuse of power, the basis for molesters of rights and.

Always reverts to the lowest form of intelligence, ad hominem abuse.

come on with some fact and show my fallacy! don't be weak like that!

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by repealthe11thamendment

Typical of the socialist or conservative thug who cannot defend the eleventh amendment with rationality, because they love abuse of power, the basis for molesters of rights and.

This isn't appropriate for this forum, repealthe11thamendment. You're not allowed to make personal comments about other posters. They're allowed to comment on your arguments and your posts, and you can do the same. You can't call them thugs or other names. Please don't do this again.

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Tom Tildrum

But states can assert sovereign immunity in cases brought against them in their own courts.

It would be reasonable to say that the 11th Amendment bars the use of the federal courts as a way around the sovereign immunity of states. Indeed, I think that's what it was intended to do.

Bogan v. Scott-Harris states that it repeals the First Amendment right to redress a grievance.

I think Jim B. recognizes this and sees the absurdity to have a first amendment give us a right and then an 11th amendment remove that same right.

Though the amendment says nothing about repealing the First Amendment, logic says it must, if suits are barred, then the Petition Clause is made moot under a so called right to redress a grievance.

Bogan says this, "Even if corrupt...the law will not tolerate a citizens redress..." a [grievance.] This was in 1998. Well, my question is why don't we know this? We say the opposite. I notice it, and quote it, and those pundits who take a stab at defending the 11th get all pissy. I too sometimes and very kurt, because this is such a simple fix, to remove the amendment. If the defense is using the "over-deterrence" theory to justify it, then, it is true that the defense admits that the 11th amendment cultivates corruption, as "Bogan" stated, by barring suits against corruption.

Our country is in such shambles, and this is an obvious place to look. Oh my looky looky, "corruption" is a constitutional right golly gee batman, do you think that the diabolical coup of the 11th amendment might be the culprit? Not one person on the www thinks so but men who have minds like Jim B. Not fully understanding the underlying essence, but just on its face are able to see the evil of it. Shame on the rest of us, I included. I've spent 6 years studying this disgusting law, and I cannot see any logical or basis, or example, other than dark age inquisitions, which birthed it in the first place, see Bartolis of Sassofforotus in the 14th century, "par en parem non habet imperium," an equal cannot rule over an equal. Surely under the 14th amendment, public employee citizens are equal to private citizens? No they are not because they get immunity for negligence and corruption.

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

I have to admit, I was just assuming. But if you read the actual amendment, it goes IANAL, but I just thought some conservative judge would read that to mean, the judicial power of the US shall not extend to "any" suit. I have to admit, I was just assuming. I didn't actually read this somewhere. But that is what it says, though.

Its bad law in a democracy, great law in a despotism or dictatorship, in fact this law cannot be in a government and logically say there is freedom from abuse of government because it successfully ends 42 USC 1983 type suits, abuse of power under the color of law.

That is what is going on in the countries we are at war with, yet it goes on here, and makes us hypocrites.

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Age Quod Agis

Tom Tildrum has already addressed this point very well.

Not sure what "that" you're referring to.

If you're asking who thought the 11th Amendment was a good idea, well, the answer is Congress and 13 (of the original 15) states.

If you're asking who thought suing other states in federal court was a good idea, the 11th Amendment appears to have been a reaction to the case of Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793). In that case, a citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia for payments owed in connection with supplies during the Revolutionary War. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that citizens could sue other states in federal court, since they weren't subject to that state's sovereign immunity.

"not appears" did in fact come from Justice Wilson's opinion. He said he was an eye witness to the fact that sovereignty did not belong in this government. It was justice Iredell who told congress in his opinion that they should "seek another means" of introducing sovereignty. Two days later the bill appeared anonymously to start the process of introducing what is called "extractive institution" to immunize themselves, thus keeping democracy from stripping the King" from his wealth, if he could be held liable for abuse of power, THUS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY!

OH YES THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED IN OUR DEMOCRACY SURE IT IS UM HUMMM IT WOULD BE A STRETCH OR SLIPPERY SLOPE TO THINK OTHERWISE BY GUM!

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

It's not "federal courts, keep out of state affairs." It's "federal courts, keep out of affairs between states and citizens of other states."

The passage of the 11th Amendment was a direct result of Chisholm v. Georgia, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that federal courts had jurisdiction over suits against states by citizens of other states based on Article III, §2 of the Constitution.

In effect, it removed "between a state and citizens of another state" from Article III.

Response:
The author of article III section 3 is James Wilson. Again, Wilson, in Chisholm v. Georgia stated that "to the constitution the word sovereign is totally unknown." He also signed the Declaration of Independence, and if you notice, King George III is not mentioned, only the "right inestimable and formidable for tyrants," which they referred to as "despotism."

In Chisholm Justice Wilson explained the reason for leaving out the word "sovereign" was so that no one, not even the people, later would attempt to be "sovereign." I guess some may not be able to tie the word sovereign to phrase, "the eleventh amendment."

The 11th amendment is Sovereignty, under the jus cogens "doctrine of immunity." For a better history see the analogical title "Sovereign Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights," Professor Jurgen Brohm. These two concepts are dependant upon each other, and cannot live without each other.

So are those supporting the Eleventh Amendment evil tyrant abusers, or do they simply not understand the distinction? Understanding this has to do with ability to decipher categorical syllogism. So if your adversary in argument cannot do this, it is pointless, but I believe not all are unable to learn. What amazes me is the level of education, some have that are hung up on supporting this akin to drowning Witches to test their innocence of guilt, absurd so called accepted by democracy "common law." Nobody ever heard of this stuff, and the first ad hominem bully comes citing a few facts, people don't want to check the math and they ignore a fallacy that should have fallen by the Copernicus paradigm shift.

Look at this false assertion of fact "It's not "federal courts, keep out of state affairs." It's "federal courts, keep out of affairs between states and citizens of other states."

The passage of the 11th Amendment was a direct result of Chisholm v. Georgia, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that federal courts had jurisdiction over suits against states by citizens of other states based on Article III, §2 of the Constitution.

In effect, it removed "between a state and citizens of another state" from Article III.

James Wilson pointed to what is called "subject matter." He said, Georgia was committing a "perversion of genus species" by attempting to reclaim "sovereign power" that was ended by the blood of the fallen patriots. All this diversion to article III by hearsay affiants 200 years later, has been able to controvert history, in the face of an Eye Witness, James Wilson, an Author of Article III, and yet here is "Really not all that Bright" ignoring this and pointing you to the article, witness helped write! Oh my god! Perversion of Genus Species!

This discussion is far from partisan politics, and typical ad hominem abuse is exempt, and only, but pointing out fallacy by individuals who conceal and acquiesce to this deceit must have some bite to it. I hope you understand.

All you have to do is read the Constitution article III. It says, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases... to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Geez, look at that, it contradicts the 11th amendment, so the amendment amends it. This perfectly legal, except that the 11th amendment is sovereignty and replaces democracy under the rule of law, because the premise of the 11th amendment is that laws are ignored when it comes to "rule of law" violations. Is that still too difficult to comprehend?

It does not follow logic in a democracy by allowing abuse of power to exist, and simply stating, "Oh well, it is old common law, nothing we can do, you can't change it." I thought they outlawed lobotomy?

[repealthe11thamendment]

Forget Canada! Jim was just pointing to the fact that they consider it. We don't our citizens, including myself volunteer for war, not knowing that we support the right for our government to abuse us, under the 11th amendment. I wouldn't do it again had I known I was allowing government to get away with almost anything the press doesn't hammer on.

In UK and Germany, they too had some form of abandoning the doctrine of Immunity. IN fact Germany did it in 1945. GEE I WONDER WHY. WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO CAUSE THEM TO ABANDON THE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO ABUSE POWER! OH NO! WE WANT THAT RIGHT IN THE USA! WE'LL NEVER ABANDON IT OR DEBATE IT OUTSIDE OF THIS FORUM RIGHT HERE,

or of course it is also debated at www.the11thamendment.com among our group.

We don't know it exists, our electorate who are better described as proletariat, because it isn't hid, its the freekin 11th amendment, actually the first amendment that undid the bill of rights, how clever. NOBODY EVEN NOTICED, NOT EVEN BEN FRANKLIN!

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

repealthe11thamendment, you might have more luck convincing people if you post in English.

o ROIT MAYT OWS AT FO YA! THAT BLOODY BE A FO YA ?

EAR EYE NOSE YOU! YUA THE BLOKE THAT LOYKS THE BLOYTA 11TH AMENDMENT.

how that for "english." a bit of cockney perhaps, but english.

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky

Except for the 2nd amendment, the Bill of Rights is basically a dead letter these days. Don't neeed to repeal sections of the Constitution any more.

Exactly! The first amendment was repealed by the 11th and perhaps any other bill of right that you would bring to the bar.

I encourage those to look at a cause of this blindness.

google "change blindness"

here is an op ed article, take with a grain of salt, http://www.examiner.com/article/chan...zi-era-germans

here is a scholars viewpoint http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKYB-...feature=topics

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Marley23

This isn't appropriate for this forum, repealthe11thamendment. You're not allowed to make personal comments about other posters. They're allowed to comment on your arguments and your posts, and you can do the same. You can't call them thugs or other names. Please don't do this again.

i MADE NO PERSONAL COMMENT, ABOUT THE PERSON ONLY ABOUT FACTS. WILL DELETE ANY INAPROPRIATE COMMNENTS, OR ALLOW ME TO EDIT THEM.

AGAIN, I INTEND NO PERSONAL ATTACK, SOMETIMES I DO GET A BIT ANNOYED, ONLY REGARDING THIS TOPIC. I JUST SAW YOUR WARNING, AND WILL TRY NOT TO BE ABRASIVE.

THIS TOPIC IS IMPORTANT TO ME, AND I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Marley23

This isn't appropriate for this forum, repealthe11thamendment. You're not allowed to make personal comments about other posters. They're allowed to comment on your arguments and your posts, and you can do the same. You can't call them thugs or other names. Please don't do this again.

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright
repealthe11thamendment, you might have more luck convincing people if you post in English.

I was commentig on this "innapropriate" sugestion that I was not of this "national origin" and could not write in English.

Are you okay with that? I just pointed to that comment as "typical ad hominem."

[Chimera]

I predict that you are not long for this board.

Dial back the ALL CAPS while you're at it. It is rude.

Also, there's this Multi-quote thing where you can quote multiple posts within one response. Posting multiple responses in a row is generally considered a bad idea.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by repealthe11thamendment

i MADE NO PERSONAL COMMENT, ABOUT THE PERSON ONLY ABOUT FACTS. WILL DELETE ANY INAPROPRIATE COMMNENTS, OR ALLOW ME TO EDIT THEM.

You called him a thug: you said his comment was "typical of the socialist or conservative thug who cannot defend the eleventh amendment with rationality." You can only edit your comments for a couple of minutes after you post them and we don't go back and delete them. Just don't call people names.

THIS TOPIC IS IMPORTANT TO ME, AND I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY

Yes, I can see that from the caps lock.

Originally Posted by repealthe11thamendment

I was commentig on this "innapropriate" sugestion that I was not of this "national origin" and could not write in English.

Are you okay with that? I just pointed to that comment as "typical ad hominem."

He was commenting on your writing style, not your "national origin." And you could stand to write more clearly. Describing a post as an "ad hominem" is OK. Casting aspersions on someone's character based on what they have posted is not OK.

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Chimera

I predict that you are not long for this board.

Dial back the ALL CAPS while you're at it. It is rude.

Also, there's this Multi-quote thing where you can quote multiple posts within one response. Posting multiple responses in a row is generally considered a bad idea.

I'm sorry..this is so petty...but I thank you for educating me on avoiding faux pas.

If we were in a room, and there was a fire, and I couldn't speek, and I typed a message in all caps or a bt msepelld lkie tihs wood it mke a deforance?

could you leave the building safely?

[Chimera]

Better question: If there were rules to a board and you couldn't follow them, could you remain unbanned?

[Marley23]

Let's get back to the topic rather than discussing the forum rules, please. This isn't the place for it.

[repealthe11thamendment]

Originally Posted by Marley23

You called him a thug: you said his comment was "typical of the socialist or conservative thug who cannot defend the eleventh amendment with rationality." You can only edit your comments for a couple of minutes after you post them and we don't go back and delete them. Just don't call people names.


Yes, I can see that from the caps lock.


He was commenting on your writing style, not your "national origin." And you could stand to write more clearly. Describing a post as an "ad hominem" is OK. Casting aspersions on someone's character based on what they have posted is not OK.

This is a forum just above twitter. I don't have time to edit my grammar. If you can't wade through some of the muck, don't read it.

stating that ad hominem abuse is typical of thugs, would only be insulting to those who abuse that way.

If I would have called him a thug, which I didn't I could see your point, but then here we go. I'm looking for debate, and what do I get,

"your writing needs work" "try speaking english." NO that's not an insult.

Whatever you do, I don't believe you are on a just path, with the way you are presenting it.

You seem to major on the minors here. I'm definately not qualified for this group

adios amigo....

[Marley23]

OK then. Thread closed.