« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Nancy Pelosi comes out strongly for… limiting federal court jurisdiction over the states?

No, really: when asked a question about the debt ceiling/so-called “fiscal cliff” today Nancy Pelosi decided to respond by talking about how she was on the side of the Eleventh Amendment.  For those of you who need reminding, that’s the one that limits the ability of federal courts to permit private citizens in one state from suing other states as a whole (they can still sue private citizens in other states).

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.

Anyway, this embrace of federalism by the House Minority Leader would be great – after all, I don’t particularly want, say, Californian eco-freaks suing Texas over its oil production; and probably neither do most of the people reading this – except that I don’t believe Nancy Pelosi for a second. She’d downright love to get that tool in the progressive toolbox, frankly.

So I’m going to conclude instead that Nancy Pelosi is dumber than soap.  Goodness knows there’s been a lot of corroborating evidence for that.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: She then corrected herself and went with the Fourteenth, instead.  The relevant section of that:

Section 1. 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.

…No, I don’t know what that has to do with the debt ceiling/”fiscal cliff,” either.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • grumpyKoz

    It’s also nice that Ms. Pelosi is for the 11th because that will protect a state which desires to manufacture products from being litigated against by it’s neighbors who wish to just take. CO2, Water, land use, all of these, according to Ms. Pelosi are afforded protections against litigation by GREEN groups from other states.

    Hurrah for Pelosi. She is learning.

  • anonymouscitizen

    I’m surprised the media didn’t tell her the answer is the 10th amendment

  • commonsenseobserver

    I think she was referring to Full Faith and Credit :P

    You know, the clause that some people were trying to convince Obama to use last year to literally abolish the debt ceiling.

  • gscandlen

    Isn’t she the one who, when asked if ObamaCare was constitutional said, “Constitution? Constitution? You’ve got to be kidding!”

  • commonsenseobserver

    Are you serious?

  • edintexas

    Repeated even. “Are you serious?” “Are you serious?”

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Yes, that would be the one.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    “A full clip.” Now there is an euphemism that I have not heard before, but a perfect analogy for Ms. Pelosi: a couple of bullets shy of a full clip. Yeah, I can use that one again and again.

  • gunnyg2002

    The botox rotted her brain like it did Hanoi John Fonda Kerry’s.

  • kycon

    To be fair, she didn’t pass any of those amendments, so she couldn’t wait until she passed them to find out what was in them. She probably just figured that with only 27 amendments to choose from, she’d get “close enough.”

  • msigmon

    Oddly enough, despite the narrow text of the Eleventh Amendment, that amendment has been construed by the Supreme Court to also cover lawsuits against a state by its own citizens (Hans v. Louisiana) and lawsuits against a state in state court (Alden v. Maine). The latter was decided by the so-called textualists, albeit not on the basis of the text but rather on the “background principles” of sovereign immunity that the text supposedly represents. All in all, that amendment and its case law are odd ducks. Not that Pelosi was right to cite it, of course.

  • Duke

    Maybe it’s just me, but from Pelosi’s hand jestures, from her verbage and from her behavoir she seems to exhibit symptoms of mental illness, or at the very least, some sort of cognitive impairment. Seriously.