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.