WI: No 11th Amendment to the US Constitution

for those not able to recite the US constitution (which would at the very least be 99% or more of the non American population) ... what does the 11'th Amendment say?
 
for those not able to recite the US constitution (which would at the very least be 99% or more of the non American population) ... what does the 11'th Amendment say?

It's the one that gives the states sovereign immunity.

So what happens if we nerf their sovereign immunity?
 
for those not able to recite the US constitution (which would at the very least be 99% or more of the non American population) ... what does the 11'th Amendment say?

This might be more helpful:

Eleventh Amendment
The Eleventh Amendment (Amendment XI) to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. The amendment deals with each state's sovereign immunity and was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793).

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
 
Obviously, the Supreme Court's Chisholm v. Georgia decision stands.
The Court ruled that Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity and granted federal courts the affirmative power to hear disputes between private citizens and States.

Therefore, creditors, foreign and domestic, feel free to ask federal courts to order the fiscally troubled state treasuries to bear the burden of their debts. Additionally, British loyalists who had been dispossessed of their homes and personal belongings by the rebelling colonies during the Revolutionary War would feel and likely would sue the state governments to recover their property. I imagine that states would soon lament being subjected to "coercive Federal tribunals and inquisitions" and boldly protest their subjugation under the power of "the Imperial Federal government".
 
A couple months ago, I happened across this law review paper which argues that Chisolm v. Georgia upheld the Revolutionary view that the people, not the state, was sovereign. In OTL, even though the Eleventh Amendment doesn't say anything theoretical, that view's been largely overridden. (The paper argues that it should be brought back.) In TTL, however, I think that line of thought could easily lead to decisions going against state rights citing Chisolm as precedent. Since the Bill of Rights isn't incorporated against the states (though some later abolitionists iOTL argued otherwise...) it would be very different from the OTL cases against state rights.

I'll need to read the essay again and Chisolm to see just what could be brought out of it, but the TTL US could turn out quite different.
 
Aside from the name on certain lawsuits, would it really make much of a difference. While someone can't sue New York, it is my understanding that someone can sue the person who happens to be the comptroller, or the governor, or the attorney general of New York. In other words, if the state owes you money sue the guy who control's the state's purse because he is preventing the state from paying its debt. The sovereign is immune, but is "bad councilors" can be sued to stop it from fulfilling its obligations.

Am I wrong? How wrong am I?
 
Top