PUBLIC INTEREST ASSIGNMENT II
Student Name
Course Number and Name
Submission Date
PUBLIC INTEREST ASSIGNMENT II
The 1700s had a lasting impact on the United States’ system of law. For example, this period saw the operationalization of the 11th amendment reinforcing the sovereignty of the states. The resolution sought to reaffirm the immunity of individual states from legal suits initiated by individuals in courts of federal jurisdiction. The amendment recognized the sovereignty of states by explicitly deprived federal courts of the power to hear cases or order action against states.
The 11th amendment was passed to turn back the ruling of the Supreme Court in Chisholm v. Georgia. The case involved a breach of contract in a deal involving the goods procured for the state of Georgia. The 1793 case revolved around the estate of Robert Farquar, who had supplied goods to the state of Georgia during the Revolutionary War. After the death of Farquar, Alexander Chisholm assumed the role of handling the deceased estate and pursued the case to the Supreme Court in 1793. The Federal Court’s ruling in support of the plaintiff triggered immense outrage and immediate response. On 4th May, the House of Representatives addressed and passed a resolution sent from the Senate seeking to amend the constitution. The argument surrounding the 11th amendment is that if any of the US states had been a stand-alone jurisdiction, it would likely be immune to litigation from other states.
The application of the 11th amendment varies depending on the interpretation adopted. First, the amendment may be interpreted to mean that states are mostly immune from federal court actions unless the state has provided explicit approval to be sued. Second, the amendment may be interpreted as providing only grounds for an individual not resident to a state to pursue federal court action against the state. Other interpretations, however, state that only individuals resident within the state may initiate action against a state. Finally, the amendment is seen to providCongressss with the power to remove state immunity in certain circumstances.
Today, the issue of state sovereignty is more complex than it was in the 1700s. Granted, the 11th amendment and court decisions provided a fairly comprehensive guideline of state sovereignty. In this definition, the US Constitution and Congress are seen to play the greatest role in shaping relations between different jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court has, over the years, played a role in reshaping state and federal government. For example, thCourtrt promoted the view that the states would retain freedom from federal influence in a wide range of local political and economic issues. Furthermore, the question over whether states can pursue a direction that fits local interests while conflicting with federal goals has been addressed. In this latter case, matters that matters not explicitly delegated to the federal government are entirely within the purview of the state apparatus. For example, in cases such as New York v. United States and Printz v. United States, the power of the federal state over legislative processes of the state is limited. In this manner, thCourtrt has expanded the scope of state immunity from both individuals and federal power.
The question of sovereignty of states in a federal system will no doubt continue to persist. The 11th amendment no doubt laid the foundation for subsequent laws that protect the freedom of states pursue their ends without interference from the federal government and Congress. Supreme Court proceedings have also played a significant role in advancing the sentiments laid out in the 11th amendment.
Bibliography
Annals of Congress, 3rd Cong., 1st sess., 476-477.
Campbell, W.J., 2012. Commandeering and Constitutional Change. Yale LJ, 122, p.1104.
Coan, Andrew B. “Commandeering, coercion, and the deep structure of American federalism.” BUL Rev. 95 (2015): 1.
Cuccinelli, Kenneth T. “State sovereign standing: often overlooked, but not forgotten.” Stan. L. Rev. 64 (2012): 89.
Gey, Steven G. “The Myth of State Sovereignty.” Ohio St. LJ 63 (2002): 1601.
Gosnell, D. L. (2019). Constitutional Law–The Eleventh Amendment–Injustice for All. West Virginia Law Review, 77(4), 6.
Perdue, Wendy Collins. “What’s Sovereignty Got to Do with It-Due Process, Personal Jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court.” SCL Rev. 63 (2011): 729.
Robinson, Daniel N. “Do the people of the United States form a nation? James Wilson’s theory of rights.” International journal of constitutional law 8, no. 2 (2010): 287-297.
Thomas, Kenneth R. “Federalism, States Sovereignty, and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional Power.” Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service, 2008.
Thomas, Kenneth R. Federalism, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution: Limits of Congressional Power. DIANE Publishing, 2011.
Wagner, J. (2016). Waiver by Removal: An Analysis of State Sovereign Immunity. Va. L. Rev., 102, 549.
Zick, Timothy. “Are the states sovereign? Wash. ULQ 83 (2005): 229.