DC Snipper Execution Tonight
David / Amicus
death row for decades before they were ever executed?
DW
> It's only been like 7 years since the crime. I thought people rotted on
> death row for decades before they were ever executed?
I'm surrpised it is so soon too.......maybe they fast tracked it in
this post 9/11 era?
I'd point out the guy who was arrested in a terror plot in
Massachusetts cited
the Washington DC sniper case in his plot.
I'm generally opposed to the death penalty. I'll make an exception
for Muhammed.
One problem I have though is Malvo actually should be the first to
fry.
Malvo, the 17 year old, was the mastermind behind this. The snipers
pearch
was big enough exactly one person......Malvo.
Malvo chose the targets.
Muhammed only went along to get out of obligations to his wife.
David Johnston
wrote:
>It's only been like 7 years since the crime. I thought people rotted on
>death row for decades before they were ever executed?
That's an out of date stereotype. Over the past 20 years many
measures have been taken to make it easier to execute people.
Hunter
Ami...@webtv.net says...
> It's only been like 7 years since the crime. I thought people rotted on
> death row for decades before they were ever executed?
Depends on the jurisdiction. In Virginia it is only six years on
average. In Texas, which is notorious for it many executions per year
it is 12 years.
"Although the three justices' complaints about the haste of the
proceedings in Virginia might seem puzzling given that the killings
took place seven years ago, it is common to take years for a death
row inmate to exhaust all appeals in the state and federal courts. In
fact, after the 4th Circuit ruled against Muhammad in August, Sheldon
said Virginia had the shortest average time from conviction to
execution of any state: about six years, compared with 12 in Texas
and 18 in California."
http://tinyurl.com/yl2d6ho
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
D.F. Manno
Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Ami...@webtv.net says...
>
> > It's only been like 7 years since the crime. I thought people rotted on
> > death row for decades before they were ever executed?
>
> Depends on the jurisdiction. In Virginia it is only six years on
> average. In Texas, which is notorious for it many executions per year
> it is 12 years.
>
> "Although the three justices' complaints about the haste of the
> proceedings in Virginia might seem puzzling given that the killings
> took place seven years ago, it is common to take years for a death
> row inmate to exhaust all appeals in the state and federal courts. In
> fact, after the 4th Circuit ruled against Muhammad in August, Sheldon
> said Virginia had the shortest average time from conviction to
> execution of any state: about six years, compared with 12 in Texas
> and 18 in California."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yl2d6ho
Virginia has largely eliminated appeals in its courts by requiring
post-conviction relief motions based on new evidence to be filed within
30 days of conviction. SCOTUS has ruled that even evidence of actual
innocence is insufficient to reopen a case or stay an execution if not
filed within the 30-day limit. [Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)]
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"I don't trust organized anything: teams, religions, corporations. People
in enterprise together consistently do two things: promulgate the enterprise,
no matter what, and protect miscreants in their midst." (Alfred Lubrano, author)
Martin Edwards
> In article <MPG.2563e62f2...@news.optonline.net>,
> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> Ami...@webtv.net says...
>>
>>> It's only been like 7 years since the crime. I thought people rotted on
>>> death row for decades before they were ever executed?
>> Depends on the jurisdiction. In Virginia it is only six years on
>> average. In Texas, which is notorious for it many executions per year
>> it is 12 years.
>>
>> "Although the three justices' complaints about the haste of the
>> proceedings in Virginia might seem puzzling given that the killings
>> took place seven years ago, it is common to take years for a death
>> row inmate to exhaust all appeals in the state and federal courts. In
>> fact, after the 4th Circuit ruled against Muhammad in August, Sheldon
>> said Virginia had the shortest average time from conviction to
>> execution of any state: about six years, compared with 12 in Texas
>> and 18 in California."
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yl2d6ho
>
> Virginia has largely eliminated appeals in its courts by requiring
> post-conviction relief motions based on new evidence to be filed within
> 30 days of conviction. SCOTUS has ruled that even evidence of actual
> innocence is insufficient to reopen a case or stay an execution if not
> filed within the 30-day limit. [Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)]
>
that while there was new evidence suggesting innocence, the prisoner
gets the hot shot because the motion was not filed on time? For shame.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
David / Amicus
reinstituted in California in 1977 that there are presently over 600
people on death row but only 13 criminals have been executed.
D.F. Manno
Martin Edwards <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
I'd suggest you ask Herrera, but he was executed after SCOTUS ruled.
David Johnston
It doesn't matter whether there is new evidence or not. The Herrera
decision decided that it was impossible for someone legally convicted
to then be considered innocent no matter what new evidence might turn
up later. In Texas they wouldn't even get the 30 days to file for
reconsideration. New evidence would simply be rejected.
Hunter
dfm...@mail.com says...
> In article <MPG.2563e62f2...@news.optonline.net>,
> Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Ami...@webtv.net says...
> >
> > > It's only been like 7 years since the crime. I thought people rotted on
> > > death row for decades before they were ever executed?
> >
> > Depends on the jurisdiction. In Virginia it is only six years on
> > average. In Texas, which is notorious for it many executions per year
> > it is 12 years.
> >
> > "Although the three justices' complaints about the haste of the
> > proceedings in Virginia might seem puzzling given that the killings
> > took place seven years ago, it is common to take years for a death
> > row inmate to exhaust all appeals in the state and federal courts. In
> > fact, after the 4th Circuit ruled against Muhammad in August, Sheldon
> > said Virginia had the shortest average time from conviction to
> > execution of any state: about six years, compared with 12 in Texas
> > and 18 in California."
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/yl2d6ho
>
> Virginia has largely eliminated appeals in its courts by requiring
> post-conviction relief motions based on new evidence to be filed within
> 30 days of conviction. SCOTUS has ruled that even evidence of actual
> innocence is insufficient to reopen a case or stay an execution if not
> filed within the 30-day limit. [Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)]
And this is why, even though in spirit I am favor of capital
punishment and I am glad that the likes of Tim McVeigh and now
John Muhammad are dead, I am against the death penalty. I mean MY
GOD!! ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO REOPEN A CASE
OR STAY AN EXECUTION WITHIN A FUCKING 30 DAY LIMIT!!!!???! There
should be NO limits in cases like that. I don't understand. How is
that justice!?!? Virginia is BEGGING for an innocent man to be
executed as if one hasn't been already.
Theoretically if a video tape pops up that shows the convict was a
1,000 miles away at the time of the murder or DNA says it wasn't him
and it is after the 30 day limit the convict is fucked!
JESUS CHRIST!!:
Here is the court ruling in Herrera v. Collins; Rehnquist majority
ruling:
"Rehnquist s opinion noted that [f]ew rulings would be more
disruptive of our federal system than to provide for federal habeas
review of freestanding claims of actual innocence.
Rehnquist s opinion, although not explicitly holding that the Eighth
Amendment does not prohibit executing an innocent person, emphasized
that Herrera was not raising a constitutional violation. In
discussing what relief Herrera would be entitled to were he to
succeed on his claim of actual innocence, Rehnquist wrote, Were
petitioner to satisfy the dissent's probable innocence standard the
District Court would presumably be required to grant a conditional
order of relief, which would in effect require the State to retry
petitioner 10 years after his first trial, not because of any
constitutional violation which had occurred at the first trial, but
simply because of a belief that in light of petitioner's new-found
evidence a jury might find him not guilty at a second trial.
Rehnquist s opinion also held that Texas courts refusal to even
consider Herrera s newly discovered evidence did not violate due
process and suggested that Herrera file a clemency petition with the
Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles."
Here is Justice O'Conner's concurring opinion in part:
"[Herrera was] not innocent in any sense of the word." O'Connor took
the position that Herrera could not be "legally and factually
innocent" because he "was tried before a jury of his peers, with the
full panoply of protections that our Constitution affords criminal
defendants. At the conclusion of that trial, the jury found [Herrera]
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." O'Connor reiterated the majority's
conclusion that the execution of an innocent person was not
unconstitutional by assuming that there was no constitutional issue
raised:
Consequently, the issue before us is not whether a State can execute
the innocent. It is, as the Court notes, whether a fairly convicted
and therefore legally guilty person is constitutionally entitled to
yet another judicial proceeding in which to adjudicate his guilt
anew, 10 years after conviction, notwithstanding his failure to
demonstrate that constitutional error infected his trial.
O'Connor concluded by asserting that the majority did not hold that
the Constitution permits the execution of an actually innocent
person."
Here is Herrera's last words:
"I am innocent, innocent, innocent. . . . I am an innocent man, and
something very wrong is taking place tonight."
All http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins
Regarding O'Connor's opinion: In other words as long as a trial is
constitionally on the up and up and all the legal protections were
available to you at the time of the trial and you are convicted, then
even if my video example was to come up say 10 years after the fact,
you are still screwed because the jury had spoken in the first trial
and it is not against the constitution to execute you in and of
itself. You need a legal violation of procedure to get a new trial,
not just the evidence of your innocence by itself. Potentially
killing an innocent man is not unconstitional by itself.
This makes me sick. Do away with the death penalty even if serial
killers and terrorist don't get what they deserve. The system can't
be trusted.
And if you are wondering why I feel so emotionally about this read
this site for more outrages:
http://www.truthinjustice.org/
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
Thanks for the headsup. That really does beggar belief.
David Johnston
Understand though that the court's position is that it is the governor
or President (depending on whether it is a state or federal crime) who
has the responsibility of considering new evidence and exercising
executive clemency as seems appropriate in the light of the new
evidence.
theget
> D.F. Manno wrote:
> > Martin Edwards <big_mart...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> D.F. Manno wrote:
Who would do that? Who would have the authority to do that?
Or perhaps you meant to ask if anyone has tried to sue Virginia
civilly? The same questions might apply.
Theget
theget
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:34:02 -0800, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus)
> wrote:
>
> >It's only been like 7 years since the crime. I thought people rotted on
> >death row for decades before they were ever executed?
I don't think they'd call it rotting.
>
> That's an out of date stereotype. Over the past 20 years many
> measures have been taken to make it easier to execute people.
Perhaps. But this article would seem to offer a contradictory view.
Someone asked for the death penalty in CA because their living
conditions would be better and maybe just as long. So if you like to
gamble...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-deathrow11-2009nov11,0,597884.story
Theget
David Johnston
>�
California is its own thing.
David Johnston
They could be sued in SCOTUS, but of course to no avail.
D.F. Manno
Martin Edwards <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> D.F. Manno wrote:
> > Martin Edwards wrote:
> >> D.F. Manno wrote:
> >>
> >>> Virginia has largely eliminated appeals in its courts by requiring
> >>> post-conviction relief motions based on new evidence to be filed within
> >>> 30 days of conviction. SCOTUS has ruled that even evidence of actual
> >>> innocence is insufficient to reopen a case or stay an execution if not
> >>> filed within the 30-day limit. [Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)]
> >>
> >> That beggars belief. Would a judge in real life rule, or has one ruled,
> >> that while there was new evidence suggesting innocence, the prisoner
> >> gets the hot shot because the motion was not filed on time? For shame.
> >
> > I'd suggest you ask Herrera, but he was executed after SCOTUS ruled.
>
> Thanks for that. So has anyone tried to prosecute Virginia for murder?
Herrera was a Texas case, but the reasoning applies to Virginia's limit
on post-conviction relief.
D.F. Manno
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
Which is disingenuous at best. The voters of Pennsylvania, in their
borderline wisdom, amended the state constitution to require a
_unanimous_ vote of the Board of Pardons before the governor can pardon
someone sentenced to death or life imprisonment. One of the five members
is the elected lieutenant governor, a second is the elected attorney
general and a third must be a crime victim.
I'm sure you'll be shocked, SHOCKED, to hear that since those amendments
were enacted there have been _no_ pardons issued in life imprisonment or
death sentence cases in Pennsylvania.
theget
I should have also asked for what reason they could have been sued.
>
> They could be sued in SCOTUS, but of course to no avail.
I'm not so sure about that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_v._Louisiana
According to that, you can't sue a state in federal court.
So if I understood that correctly, I guess it's a good idea to avoid
any legal relationship with a state, such as purchasing the state's
bonds, because if the state doesn't live up to its obligation it may
not be possible to pursue a legal remedy.
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
>According to that, you can't sue a state in federal court.
Doesn't apply to civil rights violations.
Martin Edwards
If I were President Obama I would do it. It is true that there is no
federal offence of murder /tout court/ but presumably he has good advisers.
Martin Edwards
Thanks for that too. So the governor was playing golf at the time, or what?
Martin Edwards
> In article <tdhof51d4t57stq8c...@4ax.com>,
> David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>> Martin Edwards <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It doesn't matter whether there is new evidence or not. The Herrera
>>>> decision decided that it was impossible for someone legally convicted
>>>> to then be considered innocent no matter what new evidence might turn
>>>> up later. In Texas they wouldn't even get the 30 days to file for
>>>> reconsideration. New evidence would simply be rejected.
>>> Thanks for the headsup. That really does beggar belief.
>> Understand though that the court's position is that it is the governor
>> or President (depending on whether it is a state or federal crime) who
>> has the responsibility of considering new evidence and exercising
>> executive clemency as seems appropriate in the light of the new
>> evidence.
>
> Which is disingenuous at best. The voters of Pennsylvania, in their
> borderline wisdom, amended the state constitution to require a
> _unanimous_ vote of the Board of Pardons before the governor can pardon
> someone sentenced to death or life imprisonment. One of the five members
> is the elected lieutenant governor, a second is the elected attorney
> general and a third must be a crime victim.
>
> I'm sure you'll be shocked, SHOCKED, to hear that since those amendments
> were enacted there have been _no_ pardons issued in life imprisonment or
> death sentence cases in Pennsylvania.
>
world.
theget
Strange, I didn't see an exception. But it seems to me after reading
about Hans v. Louisiana that just like the UK we don't have a written
constitution either in some ways. So it doesn't surprise me that
there's an exception, but I'm curious as to how it arose. Cites?
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Nov 12, 7:17�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:32:54 -0800 (PST), theget
>>
>> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >According to that, you can't sue a state in federal court.
>>
>> Doesn't apply to civil rights violations. �
>
>Strange, I didn't see an exception. But it seems to me after reading
>about Hans v. Louisiana that just like the UK we don't have a written
>constitution either in some ways. So it doesn't surprise me that
>there's an exception, but I'm curious as to how it arose. Cites?
Sovereign immunity protects the state and those employed by the state
from tort suits (although that doesn't mean the suit can't be filed.
it just means the suit will be thrown out). There is an exception to
this. The state can waive immunity by measures such as the "Federal
Tort Act" and state counterparts that vary from state to state.
http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-tort-claims-act
However, quite apart from that, lawsuits can be filed against
governments which are committing alleged violations of the
constitutions. For example:
http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel
All that results of course if successful is a court order to stop
doing that.
David Johnston
<big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:20:58 +0000, Martin Edwards
>> <big_m...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> It doesn't matter whether there is new evidence or not. The Herrera
>>>> decision decided that it was impossible for someone legally convicted
>>>> to then be considered innocent no matter what new evidence might turn
>>>> up later. In Texas they wouldn't even get the 30 days to file for
>>>> reconsideration. New evidence would simply be rejected.
>>> Thanks for the headsup. That really does beggar belief.
>>
>> Understand though that the court's position is that it is the governor
>> or President (depending on whether it is a state or federal crime) who
>> has the responsibility of considering new evidence and exercising
>> executive clemency as seems appropriate in the light of the new
>> evidence.
>
>Thanks for that too. So the governor was playing golf at the time, or what?
How the system is supposed to work in theory is not how it actually
works. Politically it is far safer to execute an innocent man than to
let a probably innocent man go, particularly in a "red" state like
Texas or Virginia.
theget
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:30:29 -0800 (PST), theget
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 12, 7:17 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:32:54 -0800 (PST), theget
>
> >> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >According to that, you can't sue a state in federal court.
>
> >> Doesn't apply to civil rights violations.
>
> >Strange, I didn't see an exception. But it seems to me after reading
> >about Hans v. Louisiana that just like the UK we don't have a written
> >constitution either in some ways. So it doesn't surprise me that
> >there's an exception, but I'm curious as to how it arose. Cites?
>
> Sovereign immunity protects the state and those employed by the state
> from tort suits (although that doesn't mean the suit can't be filed.
> it just means the suit will be thrown out). There is an exception to
> this. The state can waive immunity by measures such as the "Federal
> Tort Act" and state counterparts that vary from state to state.
>
> http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-tort-claims-act
That's an interesting article, and seems to say that congress created
exceptions, although how they do this in what seems to be to be
contrary to the plain language of the 11th is a mystery that I cannot
fathom, but it hasn't had much in the way of a practical effect.
Perhaps I misread.
> However, quite apart from that, lawsuits can be filed against
> governments which are committing alleged violations of the
> constitutions. For example:
>
> http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel
>
> All that results of course if successful is a court order to stop
> doing that.
I'm even more lost now because it looks like Hans v. Louisiana was a
constitutional issue. Here's the link again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_v._Louisiana
But I didn't look at the years these things were done so maybe I'm off
there?
So it looks like you can't sue, but you can sue, but you can't sue,
but if you do sue you can't get damages. Is that right?
But in anycase, I don't see how anyone could sue for the execution
being discussed. The state of Virginia didn't do anything illegal,
either under its own law or federal law. So there is no legal issue. I
think there is a moral issue. Perhaps a political issue. But I don't
see grounds for anyone to sue the state for executing the convicted,
even if it was morally wrong.
An aside. Perhaps we'll get to revisit this issue. Glory days.
http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/wall-street-journal-calls-for-constitutional-convention-to-replace-10th-amendment-door-opens-for-texas-to-secede/
and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html#mod=rss_opinion_main
I'm seeing more and more of these kinds of things. I wonder how much
misery it will lead to.
Theget
David Johnston
<the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>On Nov 13, 2:17�ｿｽpm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:30:29 -0800 (PST), theget
>>
>> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> >On Nov 12, 7:17�ｿｽpm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:32:54 -0800 (PST), theget
>>
>> >> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >According to that, you can't sue a state in federal court.
>>
>> >> Doesn't apply to civil rights violations. �ｿｽ
>>
>> >Strange, I didn't see an exception. �ｿｽBut it seems to me after reading
>> >about Hans v. Louisiana that just like the UK we don't have a written
>> >constitution either in some ways. �ｿｽSo it doesn't surprise me that
>> >there's an exception, but I'm curious as to how it arose. Cites?
>>
>> Sovereign immunity protects the state and those employed by the state
>> from tort suits (although that doesn't mean the suit can't be filed.
>> it just means the suit will be thrown out). �ｿｽThere is an exception to
>> this. �ｿｽThe state can waive immunity by measures such as the "Federal
>> Tort Act" and state counterparts that vary from state to state.
>>
>> http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-tort-claims-act
>
>That's an interesting article, and seems to say that congress created
>exceptions, although how they do this in what seems to be to be
>contrary to the plain language of the 11th is a mystery that I cannot
>fathom, but it hasn't had much in the way of a practical effect.
>Perhaps I misread.
The Eleventh Amendment immunizes governments against lawsuits for
monetary damages or "equitable relief" only insofar as the government
in question _wants_ to be immune. It does not constrain the
governments when they decide they want to allow lawsuits against them,
which is what happened with the federal tort claims act and similar
state laws.
>
>
>> However, quite apart from that, lawsuits can be filed against
>> governments which are committing alleged violations of the
>> constitutions. �ｿｽFor example:
>>
>> http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel
>>
>> All that results of course if successful is a court order to stop
>> doing that. �ｿｽ
>
>I'm even more lost now because it looks like Hans v. Louisiana was a
>constitutional issue.
It was, in that it was about whether the Eleventh Amendment applied to
residents of a given state as well as people from outside the state.
(The answer is yes). But Bernard Hans was asking for monetary
compensation, which is a no-no under Sovereign Immunity and he was
beefing about a change to the State Constitution which had no bearing
on the Bill of Rights.
A later case, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Young ruled that
while federal courts could not award damages, they could issue
injunctions and jail state officials for violating the injunctions. A
_very_ important decision for the future of judicial civil rights
protection in the United States.
>Here's the link again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_v._Louisiana
If you look lower on the link you'll find the Young case mentioned
under "Later Developments"
>But I didn't look at the years these things were done so maybe I'm off
>there?
>
>So it looks like you can't sue, but you can sue, but you can't sue,
>but if you do sue you can't get damages. Is that right?
I believe it's been remarked before that the law is complicated.
>
>But in anycase, I don't see how anyone could sue for the execution
>being discussed.
Oh they can sue. They just can't _win_.
Martin Edwards
Home of the brave.
theget
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:23:25 -0800 (PST), theget
>
>
>
> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:30:29 -0800 (PST), theget
>
> >> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:32:54 -0800 (PST), theget
>
> >> >> <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >According to that, you can't sue a state in federal court.
>
> >> >> Doesn't apply to civil rights violations.
>
> >> >about Hans v. Louisiana that just like the UK we don't have a written
> >> >there's an exception, but I'm curious as to how it arose. Cites?
>
> >> Sovereign immunity protects the state and those employed by the state
> >> from tort suits (although that doesn't mean the suit can't be filed.
> >> this. The state can waive immunity by measures such as the "Federal
> >> Tort Act" and state counterparts that vary from state to state.
>
> >>http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-tort-claims-act
>
> >That's an interesting article, and seems to say that congress created
> >exceptions, although how they do this in what seems to be to be
> >contrary to the plain language of the 11th is a mystery that I cannot
> >fathom, but it hasn't had much in the way of a practical effect.
> >Perhaps I misread.
>
> The Eleventh Amendment immunizes governments against lawsuits for
> monetary damages or "equitable relief" only insofar as the government
> in question _wants_ to be immune. It does not constrain the
> governments when they decide they want to allow lawsuits against them,
> which is what happened with the federal tort claims act and similar
> state laws.
>
>
>
> >> However, quite apart from that, lawsuits can be filed against
> >> governments which are committing alleged violations of the
>
> >>http://www.eff.org/cases/jewel
>
> >> All that results of course if successful is a court order to stop
> >> doing that.
>
> >constitutional issue.
>
> It was, in that it was about whether the Eleventh Amendment applied to
> residents of a given state as well as people from outside the state.
> (The answer is yes). But Bernard Hans was asking for monetary
> compensation, which is a no-no under Sovereign Immunity and he was
> beefing about a change to the State Constitution which had no bearing
> on the Bill of Rights.
>
> while federal courts could not award damages, they could issue
> injunctions and jail state officials for violating the injunctions. A
> _very_ important decision for the future of judicial civil rights
> protection in the United States.
>
>
> If you look lower on the link you'll find the Young case mentioned
> under "Later Developments"
>
> >But I didn't look at the years these things were done so maybe I'm off
> >there?
>
> >So it looks like you can't sue, but you can sue, but you can't sue,
> >but if you do sue you can't get damages. Is that right?
>
> I believe it's been remarked before that the law is complicated.
>
>
>
> >But in anycase, I don't see how anyone could sue for the execution
> >being discussed.
>
> Oh they can sue. They just can't _win_.
Thanks for this. Taken me a while because I was reading about stuff.
Some fascinating cases. It looks to me like the court either did an
end run around the 11th or perhaps tried to balance the 11th and the
14th. I think I have more thinking to do.
Theget