Transcription
Hey guys, got another video for you today. And today we're going to talk about the 11th Amendment. And one of the things is I've been saying this for a long time that the 11th Amendment is the first really bad part of the Bill of Rights. And it's it's it's a sign that corruption was going to continue down the line. Okay?
Because I feel like this this amendment, if you look at the Bill of Rights, the first 10 are negative rights. Like it it prevents the government from being able to do something, right? But this 11th amendment prevents the people. So it's a stop on the people. All right? And we're going to go through this right now. I'm going to expand in everything.
So first off, let's look at uh the 11th amendment says 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. So they're saying that you can't sue a different state. Like if you're from Alabama, you can't sue Georgia. If you're in Florida, you can't sue Louisiana. Okay? So, you can't do that, right? That's the thing. If you're citizen of that state, you can't sue a different state.
Now, the Constitution does say something very very very different. Okay? And it's in they they show it right here. During the ratification debates, opponents of the proposed constitution expressed concern the article 3 section 2 clause one. The the judicial power shall extend to controversies between two or more states, between a state and citizens of another state, between citizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming land under grants of different states, and between a state or the citizens thereof, and foreign state citizens or subjects could subject a state to federal suits in court in uh suits in federal court without the state's consent. These concerns were met with conflicting responses. Some agreeing and others stating that the provision only applied when a state was the plaintiff.
Now, personally, I would have been one of those guys that said, "No, anyone can sue the state. You don't need the state's consent to sue." Right? And think about it. If the state wronged you, why would you need their consent to sue them after you've been wronged by them? Well, we don't consent to you suing us, so you can't. Well, now you're just stuck, right? Now you have no remedy, no recourse. So that's why it was eventually put in there.
Article two, section, article 3, section 2 clause one, right? And this is the issue right here. It says uh between citizens of the same state cleaning land of grants and between uh between citizens of different states, between a state and citizens of another state. Right? That's the that's the provision right there that they're attacking.
So in 1789, Congress enacted the Judiciary Act, providing the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over suits between states and citizens of other states. Alexander Chisum, a citizen of South Carolina, sued the state of Georgia under the act to recover under a contract for supplies executed with Georgia during the revolution. In the Supreme Court's 1793 decision, Chisum versus Georgia, four of the five justices agreed that a state could be sued under the article 3 jurisdictional provision and that the Supreme Court properly had original jurisdiction of the case pursuant to section 13 of the judiciary act. The fifth justice James Erid Erdell reasoned that as the common law barred suits against a sovereign this principle applied to the states in their capacity as sovereigns and consequently states could not be subject to suit without their consent.
Now this is the thing. So today the states are not sovereign. They act as that they are but they're not. The people are sovereign. The 14th amendment makes one not sovereign. The people are sovereign. The state, the sovereign state is not in capacity right now. That's why they're registered businesses on Dun and Brad Street and other places. All right? Because they're businesses and you can sue them, right? They're not. But the 11th Amendment does prohibit to this day the being the ability to sue.
Now, I do have the court case here for the the Chisum case. All right. This is it. Chism versus Georgia 1793. US Supreme Court. Okay. This great cause comes before the court on a motion made by the attorney general that an order be made by this court to the following effect. That unless the state of Georgia shall after reasonable notice of this motion cause an appearance to be entered on behalf of the said state on the fourth day of the next term or shall cause to the contrary judgment shall be entered for the plaintiff and a writ of inquiry shall be awarded. So they were going to win. They were going to let this guy win. He did win. He actually won. So that's why they made the 11th amendment because they're like crap, we could just get sued, couldn't we? And lose. Such before an order can be made is proper that this court should be satisfied. It hath recognized of the suit recogniz rec to be sure we ought not to enter a conditional judgment which would being which this would be in case we were to not fully uh fully persuade we have authority to do so. Okay.
Now this is an action of assumps. If you don't know what that means, it just means uh an action of a promise, right, to fulfill an obligation. Okay. The particular question then before the court is is will an action of assumpt. So, and we go back to this. This was the issue they were having, right? Remember, he was saying that he was owed money. Alexander Chisum, a south a citizen of South Carolina, sued the state of Georgia to recover a contract for supplies executed with Georgia during the revolution. That's what it was about. Okay.
As I the question as I before observed is will an action of assumption lie against the state? If it will then it must be in virtue of the constitution of United States and some law of congress uh comfortable there too. The part of the constitution concerning the judicial power is as follows. And it lists it all out right here. Okay? And that's the part that they're doing. Um a citizen a state and citizens of another state. The constitution therefore provides for the jurisdiction where a state is a is a party in the following instances. First, controversies between two or more states. Second, controversies between a state and citizens of another state. Third, controversies between a state and foreign state citizens or subjects. And it also provides that in all cases in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
Now, this is the thing that I've been talking about with traffic court for I don't know how long, but I keep saying like all traffic court because the state is a party in the traffic cases. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over 100% of the traffic cases in the country except for those if you're not in the if you're not a citizen of the state. If you're from a different state and you got a ticket, then no, because of the 11th amendment. But this is why it's it's a [ __ ] show because of that 11th amendment. All right? They've given the state more authority and power over people who are citizens of other states, right? Um but you can still sue your own state. You just can't sue another state. So, it's it's total garbage. But this is why because Congress got scared because of this court case. Okay?
Notice that there was five justices and four of them ruled in favor of the Constitution and one didn't. And that's find that very interesting, right? That the one judge, right, the fifth judge, Justice James Aridell, reasoned that as the common law bar suits against the sovereign. Well, guess what? The state does is not does not have sovereignty the way a king does or the way the people do. So, and look here, if you are a sovereign, then you can't be sued either. And technically, you're never being sued anyway. The ends is the thing that's going to court. This is the thing that people failed to realize. It's always the ends going into court. It is never you. They can't sue a sovereign. If you go in there, hey, I'm here in my sovereign capacity, right? I mean, they're going to laugh at you, make fun of you, and and they're going to, you know, tell you that you're a sovereign citizen and blah blah this and that, right? But in actuality, because the constitution bars the common law bars suits against the sovereign, right? You can't go and that's why they created the fictional the the fictional person, okay? The artificial person. This principle applied to the states in their capacity as sovereigns and consequently states could not be subject to suits without their consent. By construing the constitution to provide for a state to be sued by a citizen of another state in Chisum, the Supreme Court led Georgia and the other states to amend the constitution. As a result, at the first meeting of Congress following the decision, the 11th amendment was proposed by an overwhelming vote of both houses and ratified with vehement speed as proposed by Congress and ratified by the states. The 11th amendment was directed at overturning the resulting chism of preventing suits against states by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of foreign jurisdictions.
Now, do you see what they did here? when as soon as everyone got their hands on this court case, they said, "Oh boy, we better stop this." So, why did they do this? Overwhelming. Because these guys saw a um an opportunity to be to take power away from the people. They saw an opportunity to do it and they went for it. You know, they didn't even they didn't even second guess it. They didn't question it. They said, "Oh, look at this. Everyone wants look at this guy could sue states and they're all thinking, "Oh man, they could sue our state. They could sue our state. Anyone could sue our state and win." Nope. Let's get Let's do this. Let's get rid of this.
It did not, as other possible versions of the amendment might have done, although bar suits against states and federal courts, that is, the 11th amendment barred suits against states with reference to their status as a plaintiff, but not address suits potentially based on subject matter. All right. Early Supreme Court decisions examine 11th amendment, although oftentimes indictum. Right. In Cohen's v. Virginia, Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the court ruled that prosecution of a writ of error to review a state court judgment alleged to violate the Constitution or laws the United States did not commence or prosecute a suit against the state. Instead, it merely continued a suit that the state had commenced and thus could be brought into federal court under section 25 of the judiciary act.
So, you see what they're saying is like um uh like uh a prosecution of a writ of error or to review a state court judgment doesn't violate this 11th amendment. It just continues this case. Basically, you're just moving the case up. Moving the which is what we do today anyway, right? That's actually what's going on. So if if you were in another state and you got in trouble with the state and you did appeals, you could appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court because it technically wouldn't fall under the 11th amendment. But you can't just go bring a case against another state. It has to be done on appeal from the state suit against you. So that's your leeway. That's your only little leeway there. You see how they shutting the door? They're closing the door, but there's still that little pathway. All right.
In his Cohen's opinion, the Chief Justice attributed the 11th Amendment's adoption to concerns about creditors being able to sue states and federal courts for payment rather than general objections about states being subject to suit without their consent. Okay, that's a good point. Well, if if you're doing business with different states and now all of a sudden you can't sue them, you have no remedy. He further stated his view that the 11th amendment did not bar suits against states under federal question jurisdiction or reach suits against the state by its own citizens. Okay, so that's the other thing. Uh so they you you can sue your own state. Okay, you can't sue another state. Okay, you can open up a court case against your state. You can't open up a court case against another state. BS. All right.
Marshall further developed his 11th amendment juristpudence in Oxorn versus Bank of the United States. Osborne concerned whether a state had authority to tax the Bank of the United States and whether federal courts could hear a suit against state officers seeking to collect a state tax from the bank notwithstanding the 11th amendment. In resolving the dispute in favor of the bank, Marshall distinguished between suits against states and suits against state officers, ruling that the 11th amendment barred suits where the state was the party of record rather than suits where the state merely had an interest in the result. Marshall further reasoned that a state officer cannot violate the constitution under the cover of carrying out a a state function.
Now this is an interesting little piece right here. A state officer cannot violate the Constitution under the cover of carrying out a state function. And that's right here. Following Osborne, then look at all this. Okay. Uh see Davis versus Gray. All right. And deciding who are the parties to the suit of the court will not look to be on the record. Making a state officer a party does not make the state a party. Although her see so they're like oh well you know we're going to protect the state but screw the screw the guy who did it right although her law may have prompted his action and the state may stand behind him as the real party in interest mcome okay so a state cannot and then this is another one mcome versus board of liquidation a state cannot without it consent uh cannot be sued by an individual and a court cannot substitute its own discretion for that of executive officers in matters belonging to the proper jurisdiction of the latter. But it has been well settled that where a plain official duty requiring no exercise of discretion is to be performed and the performance is refused, any person who will sustain personal injury by such refusal may have uh a mandamus to compel its performance. And when such duty is threatened to be violated by some positive uh by some positive Okay. Oh no, it got cut off there. Oh well, where is it? Should be here then. Positive official act any person who will sustain personal injury thereby for which adequate compensation cannot be had at law may have an injunction to prevent it. So an injunction like stops it, holds it up, right? In either case, if the officer pleads the authority of an unconstitutional law for the non-performance of violation of his duty, it will not prevent the issuing of the writ. an unconstitutional law will be treated by the courts as null and void. Okay, so look, we got some court cases here that we can use right in the in these situations. This is this is a good thing. Okay, so even though the 11th amendment is not a good thing, born out of it are some court cases that we can use, right? And this is a great quote. So this this quote comes from the Osborne versus Bank of the United States where he says um a state officer cannot violate the Constitution under the cover of carrying out a state function. And this is like all the cops when they just stop you on the road and then tell you demand things from you and you're like well I didn't do anything wrong. They're violating the constitution. Fourth, fifth, sixth amendment. Well, fourth and fifth amendment mostly is getting violated right there on the spot because they're one the fourth amendment is being violated because they they're certain stopping you and then they want they want your information. Not really supposed to do that. You have a right to be secure, okay, in your person's papers and effects, right? Uh they're making a claim that you did some kind of damage out there, but you know, if they go, "Well, you didn't use your blinker." Yeah. Who got harmed by that? You know, that's the BS crap that we got to deal with. Okay. Uh, consequently, Marshall's Osborne ruling embodied two principles. One of which the court soon abandoned and one which has survived. The former holding that a suit is not against a state unless the state is named party of record. The latter holding provides that a state official possesses no official capacity when acting illegally and consequently can derive no protection from suit when acting under an unconstitutional state statute. Okay, that is powerful right there. That is power right there. That is our power. Just realize what their authority is, where their authority stops. Okay? But you have to look at Supreme Court cases because the state courts will protect their their officers. So you have to look at Supreme Court cases and invoke that in these courts in these lower courts. Okay? If a state official does something he is not supposed to do, right? That's acting illegally. He derives no protection. So, you're shaving off his qualified immunity by proving that he's doing something that he shouldn't be doing. He doesn't have the capacity to do it. Okay? Like the cop taking your car on the side of the road, right? You say, "Well, the state statute says that uh they could take the car if it's not registered." Okay? Fourth Amendment can't be deprived of property without due process of law. That's it. Okay, let's look at this. Let's look at this amendment. Fourth amendment. Oh, sorry. It's the fifth amendment. You can't be Yeah, fifth amendment. Um, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. So, like what they did to me, they took the car. Um, and I said, "Oh, okay. Uh, I I'll go get it back from the tow company." I told the tow company, "Give it back." They said, "No." I said, "Um, well, are you a public company?" They go, "Yeah." Okay. Are you asking for fees for me to give it back? They go, "Yeah." I said, "Okay." So, I sent them a bill. They go, "We're not paying that. You pay us." I said, "Oh, no, no, no. You're using my car. I need to be compensated for that." Okay. Um, and there was no due process of law. The cop on the side of the road is not due process of law. Okay. Due process of law is the seventh amendment. This is due process of law. Okay. So, so what what am I doing here with this situation with the car? I send him a bill. I'm saying, "Compensate me, we're all good." Right? He's using it. He took private property for public use. Compensate me, we're okay. Don't pay me. We're not okay. Right? What did the cop do? He took property without due process of law. I was deprived of property without due process of law. So what do I do? I sue the tow company in federal court. I don't even take it to state court because the state's going to protect their their co tow company because they have a contract with the state. But you sue them in federal court, right? Call the FBI, say, "Hey, they took my they stole my property. I'm not being compensated for it. I've been sending them bills. They refused to pay." Right? You know, I'm just reporting a crime. What do these guys do? They freak out. They say, "Drop the lawsuit." I said, "Give me my car." What do they do? They give me back the car. I drop the lawsuit. Okay. Deal's a deal. That's all. Right. But the latter, but what about the police? Now that the cop, right? He's under He's operating under a state statute. He's He's like, "I'm right. I'm always right. I'm right. I'm the law. I know everything. You don't know anything. You're just a a roadside lawyer. That's what you are. You think you know everything because you watch some YouTube videos because you watch Tik Tok. So you think you're a lawyer now. You think you're so smart. No. Actually, the problem is this. I've been studying this stuff. I read these things, right? I'm reading this stuff, learning what this is, learning how the courts operate, right? Understand how the courts are going to view this stuff, which courts are safe to deal with and which ones are not. Munipal courts are not safe to deal with because they don't care. They're administrative courts. They're not real courts. They don't have, they're not judicial at all. They just come in, they go, "Okay, you're guilty. All right, you're guilty. You're guilty." I have a whole term for this. I call it plea funneling. When you go to municipal court, it's a plea funnel. They funnel everyone into a plea bargain. Hey, I'll tell you what. You know, um, you know, uh, you got this charge. It's like $400 and two points on your license. I'll tell you what, we'll bring it down to this. You only pay $150 and no points. And people go, "Okay, I'll take that." Stupid. It's plea funneling. This is this is total manipulation of the people. All right. But um but they're still acting under a state statute which is unconstitutional. Any state statute that says the cops could take your car because it's not registered is an unconstitutional state statute. I don't care about the whole uh you know, legal and beneficial ownership, all that. [ __ ] you know, forget it. Because if you bring that to federal court, right, and they make that claim, it opens the whole door wide open to what's really going on with the cars in the states. And they're not going to open their mouths and say anything about that. So go ahead. I mean, I personally would just go ahead and sue these [ __ ] every single time in federal court, anytime they take this thing. Sue the cop, everybody. Okay? This is what you got to do. I mean, this is what I'm doing. I'm not saying you have to. You do whatever you want. It's free country. All right? But this is the thing. The the latter holding provides a state official possessing no official capacity when acting illegally and consequently can derive no protection from suit when acting under an unconstitutional state statute. That is a wonderful thing. Okay. The problem is being able to use it, being able to invoke it. Okay. And that also comes from here as well. So, uh, you know, and there's a lot more on this, right? Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court refined Chief Justice John's Marshall's understanding of the scope of the 11th Amendment articulated in Osborne. In 1875, Congress effectively gave federal courts general federal question jurisdiction at a time when a large number of states in the South were defaulting on the revenue bonds in violation of the contract clause of the contract of the Constitution. As bond holders sought relief from federal courts, the Supreme Court further developed its 11th Amendment juristprudence in a series of cases, finding that the 11th Amendment precluded states from being sued by citizens of other states or by citizens or subjects of foreign states, even if the case had arisen under the constitutional laws in the United States. The court further found that the 11th amendment barred suits that were filed against state officers rather than the state itself if the state was indispensable to the suit. Okay, if the state was indispensable to the suit, you see what they're doing here? They keep shrinking the door. Okay, at first there was this wide open door and they shrink it, shrink it, shrink it, shrink it. This is what I mean when I tell people the 11th amendment needs to go. It has been highly, highly destructive to the American people and to remedy for the people. And this gives the state so much more power over the people that it it puts people into the position we're in now where it's like you're very limited. The only door people have to sue the state now is 1983 case. This is why the 11th amendment is so horrible and needs to be repealed in my opinion. It just needs to go. It needs to go. All these court cases have screwed up the country. Okay. The amount of protection that the states have where they were It says it flat out in the constitution, article 3, section two, it says that you can sue any state. And now here over here with the the bond, by the way, the thing with the civil war was that they were raising funds for the war efforts by selling bonds. And then after the war, these guys couldn't sell give them back the money. They couldn't pay these guys back, the bond the bond holders. So they were defaulting on their revenues. And then what this what the you know what they decided to do was well you know what we're going to do screw the bond holders the states have all protection now more we're going to give them more protection you can't sue them. No no no no no no. And the court further found that the 11th found like what did they do? Were they checking under the couch? They found that the 11th amendment barred suits. Hey look at this. Look what we found. No they that's an opinion. They made an opinion that slanted in the favor of a corrupt state that's screwing people over. Plain and simple. All right. They barred suits that were filed against state officers. The 11th amendment can now bar people from suing state officers rather than the state itself if the state was indispensable to the suit. So, there's a catch to it. If the state's indispensable, you can't sue the state officer. They found it. It was under the couch the whole time. We didn't know. That's where they found it. They found it in the garbage really because that's what that's what this whole ruling is. It's [ __ ] garbage if you ask me. So, they found it in the trash and they should have stayed there, but they decided to pull it out. Okay. Anyway, you could tell they got a little heated about this because it's so screwed up. This is this is one of the wor biggest issues in our country and nobody talks about it and nobody looks at what this is but this is it. This is this is one of the problems. If we got rid of this 11th amendment so much of this crap would fall apart. Okay. The 14th amendment would be like eh compared to getting rid of the 11th amendment, right? Getting rid of the 14th amendment. Cool. All right. Yeah, that's cool. Getting rid of the 11th amendment is freaking powerful because it opens the door wide open to people going and reclaiming their their rights, getting remedy when they've been wronged or harmed by the state because the state actors all the way up are going to protect each other. So, it's like it's it's almost like a lose-lose unless you do a 1983 case and then you have to show that there was harm, right? I mean, it's I mean either way, however you do it, it's still going to be something. you have to show harm either way. You can't have a case where there's no harm, right? Um but that's the point. The point is that it opens the floodgates and the states are now they're going to be like, "Oh, we got to be a little bit more careful with the people." Yeah, you got to be careful. You should be scared of the people. And they are. That's why they want to get rid of the guns because they are scared of the people. They know. They know how powerful we really are. Especially when we start learning and understanding how they set this system up. Once we understand this stuff, this is game over for them. Okay? And I know I've been going on a rant on this one, but but it's because this 11th amendment is such a screwed up amendment. I think it is by far one of the most damaging pieces of legislation to ever happen to this country. Okay? Is this 11th amendment, okay? It protects the states against the people. It protects the state officers against the people. And that's not how it was supposed to be. Okay.
So, um there's a lot more to this. This this one has uh a few more stuff. General scope of state sovereign immunity. Uh the Supreme Court in this decision, Han v. Louisiana, the state adopted Justice James Eridel's position in Chisel versus Georgia that the states as sovereigns were immune from suits by their citizens under long-standing principles grounded in the common law. See what I mean? See? See how they just keep making it get worse and worse. And Hans v. Louisiana, a resident of Louisiana. See, he's a resident. Mhm. It's It's 1890. So, he's a resident. He's not a citizen now. So, he's has even less rights. Okay, brought a suit against that state in federal court under federal question jurisdiction alleging a violation of the contract clause and the state's repudiation of its obligation to pay interest on certain bonds. Oh, look at that. The [ __ ] state doesn't want to give its money. It owes money doesn't want to pay it. Uh-huh. And what do they do when you owe them money? They freaking ruin your life, right? But they owe you money. Oh, it's okay. We're we're sovereign. You can't sue us. Yeah. Where'd you get your sovereign abilities from? You got it from us, buddy. All right. Admitting that the amendment on its face prohibited only entertaining a suit against a state by citizens of another state or citizens of subjects of of the of a foreign state. The court reasoned that the scope of the 11th amendment was informed by the scope of article 3 section 2 clause one which provided federal courts jurisdiction over suits between a state and citizens of another state and foreign state citizens or subjects. The court noted that the 11th amendment was a result of the shock of surprise throughout the country at the Chisum case decision which contravened long established common law president that a sovereign cannot be sued absent its consent and reflected the general consensus that the decision was wrong and the federal jurisdiction did not extend to making defendants of unwilling states and suits brought by individuals. See see what they're saying here. Oh, this Chisum case is wrong. It's bad case. You The 11th Amendment got rid of that and fixed that whole problem because you can't sue a state. They're sovereign. Yeah. And they're only sovereign because we granted that that power to them. Go look at your state constitution. One, all state constitutions say that the power derived from the state comes from the pe the the state's power is derived from the people. Go look at a state constitution. It says it every single one. Their authority comes from the people. Okay? So, if they're sovereign, then they must have got that sovereign power from the people. They didn't get it magically out of thin air because the state is just a piece of paper with a bunch of rules on it. That's not sovereign. No, the people. Okay. In the Hans Court view, the 11th Amendment reversed an erroneous decision and restored the proper interpretation of the Constitution. Delivering the court's opinion, Justice Joseph Bradley stated, "The truth is that the cognissance of suits and actions unknown to the law and forbidden by the law was not contemplated by the Constitution when establishing the judicial power of the United States." I don't think that's correct. I think he's wrong. the suitability of a state without its consent was a thing unknown to the law. That's true. But they did understand that they were cognizant of that. Like they they were aware of this, right? That's what he's saying. Oh, you know, like one thing is that it was something unknown. It was never seen before, right? And it did shake the hell out of these people. That's why they did the 11th amendment. They were like, "Oh my god, we've never seen this before. This is new." But yeah, you're allowed to do that. Why? Because the founding fathers felt that you should have recourse against anyone including the state. The states are only sovereign by way of the people. If there was no people in the state which the state what exercise what authority can it exercise? None. Because it won't be it has no people, right? The people are they're the sovereigns and they're the ones that are in they who give their sovereign powers to the state. The the court reasoned that the 11th amendment silence on whether a citizen of a state could sue that state should not be construed as permitting such suits. Instead, the manner in which Chism was received by the country, the adoption 11th amendment, the light of history and reason of the thing, led the court uni unanimously to hold that states could not be sued by their own citizens on grounds arising under the constitutional laws United States. See? See how this 11th amendment is just horrible? What they've done to the people with this 11th amendment. It is total abuse and for some reason no one even talks about it. All right.
So yeah, there's even more. The state may not be sued without its consent as a fundamental rule of juristprudence of which the amendment is but an exemplification. It is true the amendment speaks only of suits in law or equity but this because the amendment was the outcome of a purpose to set aside the effect of the decision in this courts in Chisum versus Georgia which is naturally came to came to pass at the language of the amendment was particularly phrased so as to reverse the construction adopt in that case. So, they used the 11th amendment to get rid of a constitutional provision and now they're just going to dance around it all day long and keep piling on stuff to to support it over and over again. It's just wrong. Okay? And there's so much more to this. I'm not going to read all of it because there's a lot um you know nature of states immunity. Okay? Uh there's a lot on that. Suits against states. Despite the apparent limitations of the 11th amendment, individuals may under certain circumstances bring constitutional and statutory cases against states. In some of these cases, the state's sovereign immunity has either been waved by the state either explicitly or implicitly as a product of their consent to the plan of the constitutional convention. You see right there? That's it right there. This is what people when people say, "Oh, you waved uh your sovereign immunity. You waved your rights." Right? You could do it explicitly. Yeah, I waved those rights. Or implicitly as a product of your consent. Like this is what people say, "Well, you consented. You went to court and did all this." Yeah, but you know what? You just go there. Hey, I'm here on special appearance. You didn't wave it then. Just say that. You know, I'm here on special appearance. All right. I'm here. I'm here. This is compulsory. I'm being I'm being compelled. I'm being compelled to be here against my will. So it's not consent. You're here special appearance to test jurisdiction. Right? Although uh or average in other cases the 11th amendment does not apply because the procedural posture is that is such that the court does not view them as being against the state as discussed below. The latter doctrine is most often seen in suits to enjoin state officials. however, has also been invoked in bankruptcy admiralty cases where the rez or property in dispute is in fact the legal target of a dispute. Okay.
Anyway, I think I'm going to end off here, but there is more to read, guys. Definitely check this thing out. It it's very, very informative and take a little break because after a while, you might get a little heated. So, go take a walk or something, calm yourself down, right? You know, but it's it's it's very upsetting when you see what this 11th Amendment has done. So, just keep that in mind. The 11th Amendment was the first amendment to the Bill of Rights that took away power from the people. Everything else reserved power to the people specifically except the Ninth Amendment, which which is fantastic because the Nth Amendment proves that you're sovereign, right? The Ninth Amendment proves you're sovereign because why? You deem what your rights are under the Ninth Amendment. That's a king. That's what the king does. The king says, "My rights are this." So, we're all kings. But the 11th amendment says, "No, no, no, no, no. We're going to put you in check, people. We're going to put you in check. Okay? We're going to humble you." That's what they're doing. Not okay. Let's get rid of the 11th amendment. All right, guys. I'll see you next video. Peace.