[SunkenCiv]

FindLaw's commentary (page 2):

In the 1980s four Justices, led by Justice Brennan, argued that Hans was incorrectly decided, that the Amendment was intended only to deny jurisdiction against the States in diversity cases, and that Hans and its progeny should be overruled. But the remaining five Justices adhered to Hans and in fact stiffened it with a rule of construction quite severe in its effect. The Hans interpretation has been solidified with the Court's ruling in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, that Congress lacks the power under Article I to abrogate state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. That too, however, was a 5-4 decision, with the four dissenting Justices believing that Hans was wrongly decided.

[SunkenCiv]

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·

[4CJ]

The eleventh was a direct response to the Supreme Court's egregious decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty. The plaintiff - Alexander Chisholm, a citizen of South Carolina and the executor of the estate of Robert Farquar, sued the state of Georgia for $769,613.33 [$169,613.33, the value of clothing provided by Farquar during the Revolutionary War, and $500,000 in damages].

The court (4-1) held that Chisholm could sue Georgia under Article 3§2 of the Constitution, which extends federal judicial power to cases “between a State and Citizens of another State.” During the constitutional debates it was argued that the literal order of the clause was correct, a state may sue citizens of another state, but not vice versa.

Georgia refused to appear in federal court, in that it had already paid the agents, who were to pay Farquar, and claimed sovereign immunity.

After the court ruled against Georgia, the House voted 81–9 in favor of the proposed amendment, the Senate 23–2.