“If the Eleventh Amendment were intended to protect the states from all liability in suits by private parties (as Hans v. Louisiana suggested in 1890), it is poorly drafted to do so: there would be no need to recite that citizens of other states, and of foreign states, are the parties barred. Instead, the technical language of the Amendment tracks the language of the “state-party-based” head of jurisdiction in Article III, suggesting it was narrowly targeted at removing the specific basis for jurisdiction under which the Court decided Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), and under which all then-pending suits against states (including Massachusetts) appear to have been . . . “
Read the full Article Here
~ ~ ~
Learn More at
with Chris Hallett and Kirk Pendergrass
on Wednesday and Friday nights,
at 7:30pm Eastern / 4:30pm Pacific time
~ ~ ~
Join live calls:
and on Zoom at Meeting ID 848 973 346#
or on Zoom with your phone
by dialing 929-436-2866,
and then entering
Meeting ID 848 973 346 #
at the prompt
===============
Other Links of Interest
E-Clause on YouTube
E-Clause on Facebook (Zoom Videos)
E-Clause – -> FaceBook Documents Page
E-Clause – – – – -> R4D Documents Page
Kirk’s Law Corner FaceBook Study Group (Files and Documents)
Kirk’s Law Corner R4D Documents Page
Kirk’s Law Corner FaceBook Page (Videos)
Kirk’s Law Corner YouTube Channel