"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."

Here, again, we run across the word "construed," which plainly means interpreted. Thus, powers of justice and judicial execution, which would include the Judicial Branch of Article III of the Constitution and the Executive Branch of Article II, are not to be interpreted so that their jurisdiction includes any case suit, criminal or civil, where a U.S. citizen prosecutes an American State or where a citizen of a foreign country prosecutes an American State.

This amendment is pretty straightforward, and, while necessary to be written as law, I think if a citizen of a foreign country were to "sue" or press charges against an American state that the judicial power of the United States would be automatically void if said foreign citizen were out of the U.S. at the time of legal discovery. However, in the situation that said foreign citizen were within the borders of the U.S. and in the situation of a U.S. citizen suing a state, then yes, this amendment is necessary to prevent the government from exercising its judicial power. However, does this mean that the suit simply can't be made, or do international treaties and laws guide this process? Well, strictly following the Constitution, this judicial power SHOULD be reserved for the States and the People according to the Tenth Amendment.
______________________________________________________

Publisher And School Board To Go To Trial

A newspaper publisher’s lawsuit against the Buchanan County School Board has survived a pre-trial appeal and motion for summary judgment, and appears headed for an Oct. 13 jury trial.
A U.S. District Court judge last week denied the school board’s motion for summary judgment in the 2007 suit brought by Earl Cole, publisher of The Voice, a bi-weekly paper in Buchanan County.
“I guess I’m going to get my day in court,” Cole said Friday by phone.
Cole’s complaint stems from October 2006 when he came onto the grounds of an elementary school to report a story about a school board member who sent his child to another district. Three days after he published a critical story on the board member, the school board banned him from setting foot on school premises – an action Cole contends “chilled” his First Amendment rights.
Attorneys for the school board have argued that the school board members are protected by qualified immunity, and that the resolution banning Cole from school grounds, which was later relaxed to allow him to vote and to attend public meetings, did not rise to the level of chilling his freedom of speech.
But James P. Jones, chief judge of the Western District of Virginia, in late 2007 denied the school board’s claim of immunity, ruling that board members had violated Cole’s constitutional rights.
The school board appealed, and in May the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed Jones’ order, concluding the district judge had “improperly framed the issue.”
“The appropriate inquiry here is whether a reasonable board member could have believed that banning Cole from the Buchanan County school grounds was lawful,” states the appellate court’s opinion.
The opinion noted that the school board had heard concerns from parents about Cole appearing on school grounds with a camera while children were present, and that Cole had entered a school building during school hours – all before the October 2006 incident that gave rise to the board’s decision to ban him.
Given the breadth of the school board’s authority and the facts members possessed at the time, “a reasonable board member may well have believed it was his or her duty to ban Cole from school grounds in order to protect both the safety of the students and the integrity of the educational process.”
The appellate court’s decision dismissed the school board members individually, but did not apply to the board itself, which, the court noted, “cannot claim qualified immunity.”
Three months later, the Buchanan County School Board filed another motion for summary judgment, this time claiming that the Eleventh Amendment protected them from paying damages.
Jones denied this, noting that the school board “is an independent local government agency, not an arm of the state,” and that a judgment against the board would not be paid from the state’s treasury. The ruling leaves the board as the lone defendant in Cole’s suit.

I chose this article because it defines Schools relating to the eleventh amendment.





I chose this article because it describes a case in which an individual sues a State.