Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: The 11th Amendment’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 24 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Your entire letter became outdated shortly after the Civil War began.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.

embarrassed Utahn!
Salt Lake City, UT

And isn't it wonderful???! Bigotry and discrimination will soon be a thing of the past! Thank you Herbert.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

"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?

Ranch
Here, UT

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".

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

I have to agree with atl134 on this. I cannot see how the 11th Amendment would could have been invoked.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

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.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Mike R. Unbelieveable, I just gave you a +1. I'm living in the twilight zone.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

I did too, Ranch!

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

The judge's ruling was not 'flawed"--- It was constitutional, just, fair, and most of all, legal and correct.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

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 the state.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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!

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

Spangs
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

When 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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments