Thread: One Of Our Constituion Experts Please Explain

Would one of the Constitution experts here at ALIPAC explain Amendment 11 to me:

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.
Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Unless a state (Maryland, Georgia etc.) specifically allows it by statute, nobody can sue a state. No citizen of that state, no citizen of another state, no foreigner, and no foreign government. It's part of what is called "sovereign immunity"- each state of the union retains aspect of sovereignty and one of those aspects is that the state cannot be sued unless it consents.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... /01.html#1

MontereySherry

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.


No expert but I think this has to do with the seperation of the powers of the union(United States and particulary the Judicial Branch (the courts)) and the States and the states have some protection from citizens of another state and foreign citizens...

Just guessing.

Dixie

Thanks, I am one of those people that are constantly researching everything I read on these forums, and I happened to read this amendment.

So it is only the states that are protected from being sued by a foreign government. I was somehow trying to tie this into Mexico's government backing certain lawsuits.

oh well, I am learning alot even at my age, maybe it will help keep me from getting Dementia.

I recently saw information about a case where a mexican man tried to sue the state of texas. It seems like he was a citizen but at one time was a citizen of mexico. He did not win the case against texas so he went to the mexican government...because the state of texas read him the Miranda rights..but did not read him the international right..(has to do with consuls). Mexico then tried to sue the state of texas in this man's behalf because he was not read that international right. Mexico lost due to the CONSTITUTION saying that a foreign country coudln't sue the USA. Maybe this is what that amendment addresses. I wish I could find that article because I'm sure I have left things out.

Originally Posted by Dixie

MontereySherry

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.


No expert but I think this has to do with the seperation of the powers of the union(United States and particulary the Judicial Branch (the courts)) and the States and the states have some protection from citizens of another state and foreign citizens...

Just guessing.

Dixie

I am guessing too. I think it means that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction in cases of citizens or other countries versus a state. That would explain the recent decision against President Bush by the Supreme Court. http://snurl.com/22xpq [www_latimes_com]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rebuffed President Bush on Tuesday for exceeding his powers under the law, ruling he does not have the "unilateral authority" to force state officials to comply with an international treaty.

[/quote]