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.
When state receives ANY money from federal government, State is compelled to waive any and all sovereign immunity under 11th Ammendment. Imagine how attorneys will use this perversion to bring immediate lawsuits on behalf of leftist’s who realize the ease of extracting money from taxpayers in any state. Why would a “jobs bill” require immunity from an existing provision in our constitution, unless a plan was in place to use it to attack our free enterprise system from within, and to give massive central government complete control over all manner of activities within state borders?
Read the bill. (Emphasis added)
“SEC. 376. FEDERAL AND STATE IMMUNITY.
(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.
(B) DEFINITION- In this paragraph, the term `program or activity’ has the meaning given the term in section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a).”
Here is the link to 42 USC 2000d-4a which defines “program or activity”:
“For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “program or activity” and the term “program” mean all of the operations of—
(A) a department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a local government; or
(B) the entity of such State or local government that distributes such assistance and each such department or agency (and each other State or local government entity) to which the assistance is extended, in the case of assistance to a State or local government;”
“any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.”
The above is stated as an extension of the actual citation of the general section itself.
More from Section 376 (emphasis added):
“(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- With respect to a particular program or activity, paragraph (1) applies to conduct occurring on or after the day, after the date of enactment of this Act, on which a State first receives or uses Federal financial assistance for that program or activity.”
State sovereign immunity
In Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment (1795) re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991), the court explained that
we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the “plan of the convention.” [Citations omitted.]
In Alden v. Maine (1999), the Court explained that while it has
sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as “Eleventh Amendment immunity[,]” [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from nor is limited by the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution’s structure, and its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States’ immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.
Writing for the court in Alden, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that in view of this, and given the limited nature of congressional power delegated by the original unamended Constitution, the court could not “conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers.”
However, a “consequence of [the] Court’s recognition of pre-ratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law.” Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County (2006 emphases added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they “exercise a ‘slice of state power.'” Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1979).