Published: Friday, Jan. 24 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
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."Translation, as it pertains to
this case: a Californian or a Canadian couldn't sue in federal court over
Amendment 3, it has to be a Utahn.
Your entire letter became outdated shortly after the Civil War began. I'm
sorry, but states aren't small countries able to do whatever they want.
And isn't it wonderful???! Bigotry and discrimination will soon be a thing
of the past! Thank you Herbert.
Irrespective of how you feel about Judge Shelby's ruling (and I am not a
fan), states do not have the power to assert sovereign immunity from the federal
govt. Were that so it would be done all the time and we would have a huge
patchwork of state vs. federal law.
"One man making laws for everyone is not a republican form of government; it
is a dictatorship."====== Um, I think I see the
problem.What "law" precisely did Judge Shelby make up?
The US Constitution, according to Utah's own constitution, is the Supreme
Law of the Land.You violate the US Constitution by passing laws
violating the 14th Amendment, it is a Federal issue. You get sued in Federal
court regardless of "state sovereignity".
The writer gets points for creativity, but his understanding of the 11th
Amendment has no basis in reality.The simple fact is that states may
not, no matter how popular the sentiment within a state may be, enact laws that
violate the United States Constitution.
I have to agree with atl134 on this. I cannot see how the 11th Amendment would
could have been invoked.
Samuel Nielson, sorry but you'd better get used to it. It's going to
happen in all 50 states and guess what? You won't notice a thing.
@Mike R. Unbelieveable, I just gave you a +1. I'm living in the twilight
I did too, Ranch!
The judge's ruling was not 'flawed"--- It was constitutional,
just, fair, and most of all, legal and correct.
It might have cost the state" dearly" from a financial angle, but form a
moral, correct, fair, just, inclusive and accepting standpoint, it has enriched
He IS defending it! Gov Herbert said very clearly that it's his
responsibility to defend this law as long as it's part of our Constitution.
I don't know what you are complaining about. He IS acting to defend the
amendment made part of our constitution by the proposition-3 popular vote.
What more can he do?He has to follow the legal process too.
That's why we have Judges (to prevent Governors and Presidents, from doing
whatever they want).===You are from California... and
lecturing the Governor of Utah for not defending/appealing the judge's
ruling on proposition-3??It was the California AG and Governor
deciding not to defend your prop-8 that got us here.This whole thing
should have been resolved when the Supreme Court got the California prop-8
case... but they just decided not to decide, because the people suing
didn't have standing and the people with standing (the California AG)
decided not to defend it in court.California's Governor and AG
didn't respond when the judge made his decision overriding the people. IF
they had... the Supreme Court would have had to rule on it already!
Whatever the means by which we have arrived where we have, it's good to
know Utah is leading the charge towards equal treatment for same sex marriage
nation wide. The freedom and adherence to the law we so frequently speak of
really means something.
Thanks for the "stars", but you may want to take them away because I
totally disagree with Judge Shelby's ruling. I think that he was
irresponsible. I think that he twisted the Constitution. I think that he
grasped for straws when none were even available; BUT, I agree with anyone who
would say that the 11th Amendment cannot be used by a State to stop the Federal
Government from bringing suit. When we uphold the Constitution, we
must uphold ALL of the Constitution, not just the parts that we agree with.
Whether a State should have the right to reject a suit brought by the Federal
Government is moot because that prohibition is not part of the Constitution. If
it is not part of the Constitution, then it is allowed. Our Constitution does
not have a list of things that we CAN do. We can do anything unless we are
specifically prohibited by law from doing those things. That means that the
Federal Government can sue a State.
As a sidenote: The "Obama appointee" Judge Robert J. Shelby's name
was offered up by Republican senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee. They endorsed
his nomination, with Sen. Lee describing Shelby as "pre-eminently
qualified" and predicting that he would be "an outstanding judge."
Senator Hatch also praised Shelby as "A man of keen intellect. Robert Shelby
has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the law".Judge
Robert Shelby may have been appointed by President Obama, but I find the
evidence slim that he is liberal shill.
The 11th Amendment clearly has nothing to do with this case, as the plaintiffs
in the suit were Utah citizens. Speaking only as an old law student, I think
that's fairly obvious.
Amendment 3 was a clear shot of "All-or-Nothing"-ism.Which - got
shot down. (ie.e, Nothing).I heard on KSL this morning that Governor
Herbert NOW is interesed in a compromise of Civil Unions / Domestic
Partnerships.[Which I have been advocating as a good and decent compromise
for over 9 years now -- and been called all sorts of nasty names by my fellow
Latter-Day Saints for it.]BTW - If you stick to the All-or-Nothing,
you already know what the answer is going to be.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWhen we uphold the
Constitution, we must uphold ALL of the Constitution, not just the parts that we
agree with.===== Sort of like ACA being passed by the
House, the Senate, the President and upheld by SCOUTS -- but shutting down the
government beause a minority in the GOP disagrees with it?or how
about the 14th Amendment -- which Judge Shelby used to strike down Utah's
Amendment 3.As you so said -- When we uphold the Constitution,
we must uphold ALL of the Constitution, not just the parts that we agree with.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments