U.S. Constitution, Eleventh 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.”
The 11th is blatantly clear, it really needs no interpretation.
ANALYSIS OF THE 11TH AMENDMENT:
What are the two powers through which the courts rule?
- Judicial power
- Jury power
And note that Judicial power is questionable, however, Jury power may
not be reexamined (7th Amendment). Also do not be deceived, the
Jury has the power to judge both the law and the fact
A classic example of the jury process in which there is absolutely
zero judicial involvement from administrative, adjudicative or any
decision making power what so ever is the Gran Jury process. There
is no judge in a Grand Jury, the jury is made up of "we the people" and
decides both fact and law. Grand Juries make up a critical
component of the legal framework mandated by the Constitution as
dictated in the Fifth Amendment "No person shall be held to answer for a
capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury".
The very construct of the Constitution, the essence of the formation
of the United States of America, is founded on the principle of
eliminating tyrannical government; the construct that the government can
not do what they want; the principle that all stand equal before the law
and that all parties to suits are entitled to impartial decision makers;
etc. Consequentially, the establishment of the 11th Amendment is based
upon the principle that the judiciary, which consists of a group of
individuals whom are employed by the State, naturally has no authority
to preside over a case brought against their employer, the State.
Suits brought against the State can thus naturally only be
adjudicated by Jury where the decision maker in the trial or in any
matter leading up to the trial is no party to
the suit and where the Jury in accordance with the construct of Trial By
Jury, decides both the law and the fact. "The jury has the right to
judge both the law and the facts" - Samuel Chase, 1804, Supreme Court
Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence.
In a Trial By Jury the judiciary has no function. The judiciary has
no power to dismiss a case or weigh the merits of a case that is brought
before the court for a trial by jury. Those are functions
absolutely and completely reserved for the jury. Clearly the judiciary
has no authority to make any decisions in a Trial by Jury, otherwise, it
is no longer a Trial By Jury, it becomes a Trial by Judge. If, for
example, a judge orders that certain evidence be not presented to a
jury, then that judge holds the power to influence the outcome of the
trial and it is a trial by judge and not by jury.
One of the key reasons the courts are so utterly corrupt in the
United States is because judges rush in and take control of trials by
jury, thereby exceeding their jurisdiction and according to the law,
those judges commit treason. That is they pervert the very
construct of law and order and governance in the nation. Judges so
readily commit treason in our courts because they know the appeal
process offered to those the commit treason against is made up of
appellate courts consisting entirely of judges employed by the State.
In other words, judges have completely destroyed the Trial By Jury
process within U.S. courts, committing high treason of the very worst
kind. Rampant abuse of process and the destruction of the
Constitutionally mandated law and order within the nation has resulted.
The Judiciary and Executive Office have now become so completely out of
control that they themselves now make law, ignoring Article 1, Section.
8 of the Constitution which dictates that "The Congress shall have
Power.... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,
over such district". The tricameral construct of government in the
United States explicitly limits lawmaking power to Congress. The
Executive and Judicial branch of government is explicitly prohibited
from making law. (Note that Common Law dictates that if a law
cannot be understood/interpreted by the common man, then it is not law.
i.e. there is no judicial construct to interpreting law - if the common
person cannot understand the law then it must be sent back to Congress
as void, forcing Congress to rewrite the law so that the common man can
understand it. Note also that the "Code" is not law, it is code,
like a "code of ethics" see LAW and
Understanding Law
in the U.S.)
Clearly the judiciary has no decision making authority in suits
brought against their colleagues.
Commentary regarding Supreme Court Analysis of the 11th Amendment: Many courts
including the Supreme Court have made a number of contradictory and
clearly blatantly void rulings in regard to the 11th Amendment.
Astonishingly, the courts have read into the 11th not only concepts that
are absolutely not there, but concepts that scream in the opposite
direction to the construct of the Constitution. In particular, the
concept of "sovereign immunity of government" and the elimination of
accountability of the State.
Great error has crept into many judicial decisions in regard to the
idea of Sovereign immunity, which is not mentioned once in any way or in
any part of the Constitution. Such a concept flies in the opposite
direction of the principles and purposes upon which the government of
the U.S. was established. There is absolutely no principle of Sovereign
immunity under the Constitution, which goes to great lengths to ensure
equality and responsibility under the law and is the exact opposite of
any suggestion of a sovereign class or of any immunity. To the contrary, government
entities and employees, if anyone, are to be held to a higher standard
when it comes to responsibility under the law, they are utterly
accountable – this after all was the purpose of establishing the U.S.
and the underlying construct of the Constitution.
Immunity is mentioned only twice in the Constitution:
Article IV, Section. 2. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to
all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." thus
implying absolute equality of all citizens whether or not they work for
the State or not. And in
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." which further
enforces the construct of equality.
There is categorically and absolutely zero implication or statement
within the 11th Amendment that says or implies that a State cannot be sued
or has 'sovereign immunity', it
simply is not there. All the 11th says is that judges have no power
(Judicial power). What other decision making power remains? Naturally the
other cornerstone of the judicial system: Jury power.
There are two ways
to decide a case in a Court: Either by Jury or by Judge. The very
construct of Trial by Jury was given to our nation so that the very
construct of Judicial corruption could be overcome. The very reason we
give the Jury the power to decide both the law and the fact is because
we know, as the founding fathers knew, that the government and in
particular the judiciary, would become corrupt. And how they have!
Take a look at what "Judicial Power" has attempted to infer as to
their absurd interpretation of the 11th Amendment:
- the judiciary goes as absurdly far as to suggest that a State cannot
be sued, which is a classic example of the Judiciary attempting to make law because no where does the 11th Amendment or any
part of the
Constitution say or infer
such;
- the Judiciary has even tried to make new law saying that “they the
government” is Sovereign, that “they the government” can Lord it over
“we the people” as “Kings and Queens” who have been put on the throne by God
Himself (thereby taking on the very persona of King George who was
thrown out by the American Revolution);
- And that they the government, like the King and Queen, can do no wrong
because, after all, God put them on the nations throne, and God can do no
wrong. This is the origins of sovereign immunity under English
Common Law which is subordinate to and overruled by our Constitution.
The Judiciary's interpretation of the 11th is utterly and categorically
and pathetically absurd! The U.S.A. was
founded so as to bring accountability to government, there is no king or
queen in the U.S., all stand equal before the law.
As for the Kings and Queens of England’s idea that because the Bible states that
God puts authorities on the throne (Romans 13:1 “for there is no
authority except that which God has established”), that this some how
grants the King or Queen sovereign immunity, it too, is also utterly absurd
and illogical. Since such a foolish
analysis ignores the fact that und such construct, it implies that God also put people like Hitler
or Bush on the
‘throne’. Clearly, such a positioning is not one to be respected, but
rather that perhaps God’s reasoning for such, is more likely to chastise
us to stand up against such tyrants, to speak out for the common man,
and to stand up for justice and to hold tyrannical rulers accountable.
The very behavior of Judicial power within the U.S. illustrates the
exact purpose of the 11th which is to eliminate Judicial power in suits
where judges are parties to the suit. In any suit in law or equity,
commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
another State. The Judiciary is employed by the entity against which the
suit is brought and therefore obviously has no authority to preside over
such a suit as they have good reason for inherent bias.
|
