Obama's Jobs Bill explicitly declares 11th amendment null and void?

[Little-Acorn]

The 11th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that a State cannot be sued, either by citizens of another state, or by people in another country. It's generally regarded as the Cosntitution's guarantee to states, that they are sovereign.

Apparently a section of the Obama Jobs Bill (the one he still hasn't gotten submitted in Congress to be discussed or voted on) baldly says, that the 11th amendment doesn't count any more. States now CAN be sued. It even names the 11th amendment specifically, and says that its protection is now gone.

I didn't even KNOW that a Federal law could simply overrule a Constitutional amendment like that. In fact, I still don't know it.

This is VERY weird.

Suppose Obama had put together a bill that said that the 6th amendment's requirement that "people on trial must have a lawyer", also didn't count? No reasons given, no attempt to explain why. Obama just writes a law saying that people can now be put on trial without a lawyer at all.

That would be just as weird as this passage in the Jobs Bill, saying that states now CAN be sued. Especially the plain language saying the 11th amendment no longer applies. Does anyone else find this flat overrulling of part of the Constitution, mind-boggling? Or is it just me?

Tossing out the 6th amendment would certainly get lots of press coverage. The screams would be deafening. Why isn't tossing out the 11th, getting any press?

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011...nth-amendment-state-sovereignty-extinguished/

Obama Jobs Bill and Eleventh Amendment: State Sovereignty Extinguished

September 20, 2011

The Obama Jobs legislation took care to add a complete section waiving State’s “sovereign immunity.” It involves anything the Feds might be involved in, in creating jobs within any state, and specifically if the State takes Federal monies. I don’t know how Federal assistance might be construed, outside this particular bill, but I bet it creeps into areas we can’t imagine. The video below is the best you will likely ever find on our system of government, as set-up by our Founders. Call your Governor’s office, please, about Section 376 of the Obama Jobs legislation, and show the video to your children and your Liberal friends.

The 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.


A passage from Obama's "Jobs Bill":

(a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act.

(b) Waiver of State Immunity-

(1) IN GENERAL-

(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act for a remedy authorized under Section 375(c) of this Act.


Section 376 of Obama’s tax and spend “jobs” bill ends state sovereignty, turns our Republic into a dictatorship and destroys the foundation upon which our country was built. The fundamental transformation of America is almost complete.

 

[Alias]

Obama will be removed soon and our national nightmare will be coming to an end. The American people have rejected statism that was packaged and labeled "Hope and Change".

 

[bododie]

I doubt the states are going to sit back and not respond, at least certain ones. Hopefully here comes the rebuttal to "hope and change".

Of course maybe the Obama dream of a youth army is formed and ready. Of course we all know that the people they are recruiting can't resist our secret weapon....the twinkie. Lol.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Sure, there's no way this could become law, or last past its first Court hearing if it did.

But that's not the point here.

What U.S. lawmaker in his right mind, would write a proposed law saying, "Passage X in the Constitution that forbids this, doesn't apply here" ???

And yet one apparently just did.

And no one's acting like it's any big deal???

I don't recall ever seeing ANY proposed legislation that so blatantly announced its own unconstitutionality. Are we in the Twilight Zone or something here?

 

[Dr.Who]

What U.S. lawmaker in his right mind, would write a proposed law saying, "Passage X in the Constitution that forbids this, doesn't apply here" ???

And yet one apparently just did.

And no one's acting like it's any big deal???

I don't recall ever seeing ANY proposed legislation that so blatantly announced its own unconstitutionality. Are we in the Twilight Zone or something here?

"
“Anything we’re doing that’s unconstitutional will be thrown out in court.”

—-Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), expressing his disdain for a new House rule that will come in with the new Republican majority, requiring every bill to cite specific constitutional authority.

Similar sentiments expressed by others:

* “No harm, no foul!”
* “Hey, if we get away with it, we’re not criminals, right?”
* “Look, it’s worth a shot: if we sneak it past the inspectors, we’re home fee, and if they catch us, what’s the worst they can do?
* “Constitution? What Constitution?”

The fact is, as Rep. Frank, a smart and learned man, well knows, courts do not automatically overturn unconstitutional laws. Sometimes nobody objects, so the issue doesn’t get to court. Sometimes a law will stand for years before it gets to court. Sometimes a judge will make a mistake, or intentionally allow an unconstitutional law to stand, because, like Barney, he thinks he’s smarter than James Madison, George Mason and all those other old, dead guys.

But members of the House of Representatives, like Barney Frank, swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Note that the oath does not say that the officeholder swears to try slip by the courts and the public any measure he or her deems in the best interest of the public regardless of whether it is constitutional or not.

Frank’s delusion seems to be widespread. Back in September, another unethical quote was featured here, from the keyboard of Slate editor Dahlia Lithwick, who mocked the eminently mockworthy Christine O’Donnell for saying that if elected to the U.S. Senate, she would only vote for constitutional measures . Lithwick wrote: “

“How weird is that, I thought. Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn’t that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution?”

What is really weird—and irresponsible, and quite possibly sinister— is so many supposedly educated members of the media, as well as elected officials who have taken an oath to proactively protect the Constitution, believing that it is proper for legislators to ignore whether a bill is constitutional or not.

Speaker-to-be John Boehner’s edict that the Constitution be read aloud to the House of Representatives, together with his new requirement that bills have specific constitutional authority, is being ridiculed by—surprise!—much of the media and Democratic legislators. They should check that Oath of Office and reconsider who is ridiculous. It is difficult to support and protect something you don’t respect."

http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/01/04/unethical-quote-of-the-week-rep-barney-frank/

Its not just like we are on the Twilight Zone - It is like we are on it everyday.

 

[dogtowner]

What U.S. lawmaker in his right mind, would write a proposed law saying, "Passage X in the Constitution that forbids this, doesn't apply here" ???

And yet one apparently just did.

Not exactly, the WH is the source and it is NOT a lawmaker.

But this legislation is DOA so no reason to fret.

 

[Dr.Who]

But this legislation is DOA so no reason to fret.

Which is why I never fret about attempts on my life until they succeed.