Answer is A..............
Answer:
The pro of the 11th amendment are that states cannot be sued by a citizen who does not live in that state in federal court. The con is that states gain some immunity and you cannot petition them for lost property or funds.
Explanation:
The Pros of the 11th amendment:
The 11th Amendment to the US Constitution is a complicated but short amendment that has various implications. Basically it says that the federal courts of the United States cannot hear cases where a citizen who lives in another state or the citizen of another country is petitioning to sue that state. This gives individual states their sovereignty so they can act without bringing upon themselves a lawsuit. It is also good in terms of our state taxes and the costs to administrate the state. It seems that before the 11th Amendment of the US Constitution was ratified, most of the cases that were brought against a state in this way were suing the state for money they had failed to pay back or the return of property. This is the case with a British citizen named William Vassall who apparently sued the state of Massachusetts for the land they confiscated from him during the Revolutionary War. This would become an expensive process for each state if it were still possible.
The Cons of the 11th amendment:
The 11th Amendment has negative implications too in the sense that you can be wronged by a state and you will never be able to redress it by appealing to federal courts. It gives states a level of immunity if they are confiscating property from people who live out of state or who come from another country. It seems to put the rights of the state above the rights of a citizen or foreign citizen in this regard.
Because slavery was a horrible thing in US history and it is important that it doesn't happen again <span />
I think it is A
Kdbdjsksjdjjdjdjdjd
Answer:
True.
Explanation:
The given statement would be considered true as it asserts a true claim about J.S. Mill's 'principle of liberty' denying the conception of 'victimless crime'. He stated that individual actions should only be restricted when it is causing damage to others. He proclaimed that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others". In simple terms, he stated that no one should be prevented from doing a specific action unless his/her actions are not invasive or harmful to the other's rights. Therefore, the given assertion is <u>true.</u>
