“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

Kirk’s Law Corner

with Chris Hallett and Kirk Pendergrass

of E~Clause LLC

 on Wednesday and Friday nights,
at 7:30pm Eastern / 4:30pm Pacific time

~          ~          ~

Join  live calls:

on YouTube

on Facebook

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