11th Amendment and Commerce Clause

[JakeB]

Sounds good - glad you found the help you needed!

Well, I didn't find the answer with help. Nobody seemed to know.

I'm surprised nobody here asked what the answer is.

 

[Zigner]

Well, I didn't find the answer with help. Nobody seemed to know.

I'm surprised nobody here asked what the answer is.

Does anyone care?

 

[Silverplum]

Well, I didn't find the answer with help. Nobody seemed to know.

I'm surprised nobody here asked what the answer is.

That's the "bummer" of volunteers: we don't care and we don't do homework.

 

[JakeB]

Does anyone care?

I would imagine a legal scholar would. But then again, few here are legal scholars, right? Most just seem to be the type who like to spend their days googling, 7 seconds at a time.

 

[JakeB]

That's the "bummer" of volunteers: we don't care and we don't do homework.

And you don't know the answer.

You forgot that part.

 

[tranquility]

Do tell us the fascinating history of 11th amendment jurisprudence since Hans v. Louisiana. I beg of you. I sincerely cannot stand the legal quandry any longer!

 

[JakeB]

Do tell us the fascinating history of 11th amendment jurisprudence since Hans v. Louisiana. I beg of you. I sincerely cannot stand the legal quandry any longer!

Well, since you asked, here's the skinny in a nutshell:

The 11th Amendment only forbids suits against a state in federal court where the remedy sought is damages, injunctive relief, etc. It does not forbid suits against a state where the plaintiff is only seeking to render a state law unconstitutional. Thus, your Commerce Clause cases are okay, as was the Texas sodomy case.

 

[tranquility]

Praise the Lord that the revolutionary war problem had only to do with money. Or else such knowledge would not be!

 

[badapple40]

Well, since you asked, here's the skinny in a nutshell:

The 11th Amendment only forbids suits against a state in federal court where the remedy sought is damages, injunctive relief, etc. It does not forbid suits against a state where the plaintiff is only seeking to render a state law unconstitutional. Thus, your Commerce Clause cases are okay, as was the Texas sodomy case.

That is not right. It only prevents money damages against the state (but not state officers) -- the exceptions are damages under the civil war amendments of course. Injunctive relief, in addition to declaratory relief, are still available.

 

[JakeB]

That is not right. It only prevents money damages against the state (but not state officers) -- the exceptions are damages under the civil war amendments of course.

Ummm, I wasn't talking about suing state officers. I was talking about suing states.

Injunctive relief, in addition to declaratory relief, are still available.

Again, you're talking about state officers. I'm talking about states.

 

[Zigner]

I would imagine a legal scholar would. But then again, few here are legal scholars, right? Most just seem to be the type who like to spend their days googling, 7 seconds at a time.

Ahhh, so this WAS homework

 

[JakeB]

Ahhh, so this WAS homework

Nope. Why would you think it's homework? Because I used the word "scholar"? It may be hard to believe, but some people enjoy learning new things even when outside the classroom.

 

[seniorjudge]

Ummm, I wasn't talking about suing state officers. I was talking about suing states.


Again, you're talking about state officers. I'm talking about states.

badapple was, of course, 100% correct.

If you don't know the difference between suing a state and suing state officers, then you really shouldn't be posting here.

 

[JakeB]

badapple was, of course, 100% correct.

If you don't know the difference between suing a state and suing state officers, then you really shouldn't be posting here.

This thread seems to be going over your head. I do know the difference between suing a state and suing a state officer, and I think I made that point fairly clear when I noted that badapple was mixing the two. This thread is about suing the state ONLY.

You can seek injunctions where a state officer is a party, but not where a state is a party. You can seek damages where a state officer is a party (so long as the money doesn't come from the state treasury), but not where the state is a party.

I am only talking about suing a state, and I am now clearly making the distinction between suing a state and suing a state officer.