Talk:Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) Thing(s).

Interesting fact[edit]

Apparently during the interim between Chisholm and the eleventh amendment's ratification, the Georgia state legislature debated a bill that would have made an attempt by a U.S. marshal to serve a writ in a Chisholm-type case a crime punishable by hanging, and without benefit of clergy. This was reported in the Augusta Chronicle of Nov. 23, 1793, p. 3. I believe the bill was discussed on Nov. 19, 1793, and a vote was held on striking the portion of the bill describing the felony, which failed (8-19). This was evidently its second reading. The Georgia House is said to have passed the bill. William A. Fletcher, A Historical Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment: A Narrow Construction of an Affirmative Grant of Jurisdiction Rather Than A Prohibition Against Jurisdiction, 35 Stan. L. Rev. 1033, 1058 (1983). Anyway, I'm not sure how to work it into the current article, so I thought I'd leave this here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read this also. I'm not sure how relevant it is to this article, but it is interesting. Maybe this fact can be added to Chisholm v. Georgia. SMP0328. (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Well given the high relevance of Chisholm to this article, and the fairly high relevance of Georgia's bill to a discussion of the aftermath of Chisholm, I think it's fairly relevant. At the very least it permits a filling out of the background of factors leading to this amendment. My understanding is the Georgia bill failed, and while there were similar proposals in its wake, these were all silenced by the Eleventh Amendment. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The bill passed the Georgia House, but was not enacted. It's relevant only if there is reliable sourcing showing that helped convince the Congress to propose the Eleventh Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification[edit]

Obviously it is only because I am a non-specialist, but this wikipedia article does not clarify for me whether Article III Section 2 of the constitution is partly repealed, or only tightened by this amendment. That article gives federal courts jurisdiction over "controversies ... between a state and citizens of another state." The amendment seems to me to say the opposite. So are those words in article III nullified, or is there some sense which I am missing in which they are still valid in a modified way? The words "shall not be construed" in the amendment sound like the framers of the amendment are merely warning against a misinterpretation of the original article, but if so, what did they want the original article to mean? --Doric Loon (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The amendment overruled a Supreme Court interpretation (Chisholm v. Georgia) of those provisions in Article III, Section 2. Those provisions still apply to suits where a State is a plaintiff and the defendant is a citizen of another State or another country. SMP0328. (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)