Nov
16
2012

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

This was considered a problem?

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.

5 Comments

  • Crawford says:

    She’s citing the 14th? Is she a birther?

  • acat says:

    You know what this means, Moe?
    .
    The Left have decided that if the Right can cite stuff, then they’d better cite stuff too!
    .
    San Fran Nan just … didn’t bother to *read* it first. Eleventh Amendment .. *sounds* authoritative… and that’s what matters.
    .
    Baghdad by the bay ought to be ashamed, but .. well .. Baghdad by the bay.
    .
    Mew

  • heyjames4 says:

    Possible spin is section 4 of the 14th amendment. That’s the part that discusses public debt. It’s original purpose was to proclaim the legitimacy of the Union’s war debts, including paper money, and the illegitimacy of the Confederacy’s.

    The actual text says: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”

    Is it too hard to imagine an intern or staffer willfully misinterpreting “The validity of the public debt…shall not be questioned.” as a talking point to get reporters to not ask questions about spending issues?

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com