By Scott Winchell; SUA National-Editor-in-Chief

The 11th Amendment:

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.

What part of our Constitution is written in an alien language? Apparently a lot of it. Or so it would seem by all the actions over the last 100 years that were perpetrated against it. Last I looked, it is still in English, our native language, but apparently that does not matter either. We all know that languages change over time, for good and bad, but the words written in the Constitution are clear. Also, when there are no words in it pertaining to a certain subject, then no law can be contrived or derived from it abrogating any section, phrase, clause, or word, including the all important punctuation.

In the latest assault on the Constitution, and its Amendments, the Obama Administration is suing Arizona over its new law SB1070. The President, his administration, and its employees are citizens of the United States of America (arguably in one case at least). Regardless of their positions, they are still citizens so we have that one covered. But yet, the DOJ are still bringing suit in a Federal Court against a sovereign state of the union.

The 11th Amendment is very specific. But yet our courts have found ways around it. There are some specific precedents that courts have deemed necessary, and there is also a Congressional action that can be construed to get around it as well.

---

At the Free Dictionary The four exceptions are listed:

Exception 1

Eleventh Amendment does not bar all lawsuits brought against state governments in federal court. Four major exceptions have been recognized by the Supreme Court. First, the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to lawsuits brought against a state’s political subdivisions. Accordingly, counties, cities, and municipalities may be sued in federal court without regard to the strictures of the Eleventh Amendment.

Exception 2

The second exception to the Eleventh Amendment permits a state government to waive its constitutional protections by consenting to a lawsuit against it in federal court. For example, Minnesota could waive its Eleventh Amendment protections by agreeing to allow a federal court to hear a lawsuit brought against it.

Exception 3

The third exception permits Congress to abrogate a state’s Immunity from being sued in federal court by enacting legislation pursuant to its enforcement powers under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 96 S. Ct. 2666, 49 L. Ed. 2d 614 [1976]). Congressional intent to abrogate a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity must be “unmistakably clear” (Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S. Ct. 3142, 87 L. Ed. 2d 171 [1985]). Evidence of this intent may be found in the legislative floor debates that precede a congressional enactment (Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 59 L. Ed. 2d 358 [1979]).

Exception 4

In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress may not abrogate a state’s Sovereign Immunity from being sued in federal court pursuant to its regulatory powers under the Indian Commerce Clause contained in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S.44, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 134 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1996). Seminole overruled Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 2273, 105 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989), which held that Congress may abrogate a state’s immunity under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which adjoins the Indian Commerce Clause in Article I.

---

Why the exceptions do not apply:

Exception 1

In this case, option number one does not apply because no sub-divisions of the state are being sued, it is the state itself being sued.

Exception 2

The second option does not apply either. Arizona is not waiving its immunity.

Exception 3

The third option is also not germane. Congress has not acted to abrogate Arizona’s immunity.

Exception 4

Finally, the interstate commerce exception is also null. The DOJ is not seeking relief through the Interstate Commerce Clause because no interstate commerce is affected. Though they may well contrive some excuse here.

---

It is painfully clear now, that the current administration, is trying to get the Federal Judiciary to make another exception. Why you ask? Well it is hard to say what the actual reasoning is, but it certainly must be part of a grander scheme. It can be the only explanation. When Senator John Kyl of Arizona met with Obama in the Oval Office and was told on June 18th:

“The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’ President Obama

Well there it is folks, its a political ploy, but to what end? Some say its for voting blocs, or a new world order, or Agenda 21 from the UN, or the North America Union. Anyway you slice it, its illegal.

Since the DOJ is doing this, it constitutes yet another high crime or misdemeanor because the President of the United States is condoning the action, thereby once again breaking his oath of office. He is not upholding, or protecting the Constitution of the United States. Instead he seeks once again to dance around the Constitution for nefarious political purposes which constitutes treasonous activity.

In some respect, he is also acting on behalf of a foreign power. It is not a question that Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico dislikes the Arizona Law. And since he issued a travel advisory against Arizona to his Mexican citizens, it can be construed that the DOJ is acting to benefit a foreign power against the wishes of a sovereign state of the union. That is definitely treason.