Constitutional Individual Rights

Constitutional Rights Name Institutional Affiliation Constitutional Rights The scope of individual rights and freedom is often considered by the courts, and the Supreme Court sometimes takes a broad view of constitutional rights enumerated in clauses of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. This expansive view of constitutional rights has helped to curb state rights, which might interfere with constitutional rights. Political values of justices and constitutional interpretation theories play a role in court decisions, with the conservative wing of the Supreme Court often preferring a broader interpretation of the 10th and 11th Amendments (Pfander, 2009). A rule that avoids direct accountability of the state in federal court for actions that violate the federal rights may seem peculiar. The conventional interpretation of the 11th Amendment has its origin in Hans v Louisiana (1890) case that introduced a broader understanding of state immunity. In Chisholm v Georgia, the Supreme Court’s decision in 1793 upheld federal jurisdiction over a suit by a citizen of another state against a state (Massey, 1989). The above events indicate the powers of courts in overturning the original meaning of the Constitution, such as the 11th Amendment that provided sovereign state immunity against citizen suits. In 1793, a South Carolina resident, Alexander Chisholm filed a legal suit against the state of Georgia for unsettled debts incurred in the War of Independence. While Georgia claimed that states were protected from such cases and refused to appear...