|
''Hollingsworth v. Virginia'', 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798),〔''(Hollingsworth v. Virginia )'', 3 U.S. 378 (1798) (opinion full text)〕 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled early in America's history that the President of the United States has no formal role in the process of amending the United States Constitution and that the Eleventh Amendment was binding on cases already pending prior to its ratification. ==Background== Levi Hollingsworth was a Pennsylvania merchant who owned shares in the Indiana Company, which was heavily involved in land speculation. The Indiana Company was seeking to resolve a land claim with the state of Virginia regarding land in what is now West Virginia.〔Marcus, Maeva. ''(Suits Against States )'', pp. 274-289 (Columbia U. Press 1994).〕 Hollingsworth replaced a previous plaintiff in the case, a Virginian named William Grayson.〔 This replacement was made when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in ''Chisholm v. Georgia'' (1793) that a state could be sued in federal court by a citizen of another state; Hollingsworth was from another state, whereas Grayson was not.〔 This derivative suit dragged on, and President John Adams announced on January 8, 1798 that the Eleventh Amendment was ratified.〔 That Amendment overturned ''Chisholm''. So, the first main issue in the case became whether the Eleventh Amendment was valid, not having been presented to the President for approval or veto. The second main issue was whether the Eleventh Amendment applied retroactively to ongoing cases that had already begun before the Amendment was ratified. The attorneys for Hollingsworth were William Tilghman and William Rawle. They argued for presidential involvement in the amendment process (and against the constitutionality of the Eleventh Amendment), saying: "Upon an inspection of the original roll, it appears that the amendment was never submitted to the President for his approbation."〔 The proposed amendment had been laid before President George Washington merely "for transmission” to the states.〔Tillman, Seth. "(A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Virginia was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha was Wrongly Reasoned )", ''Texas Law Review'', Vol. 83, pg 1265, 1300 n. 78 (2005).〕 U.S. Attorney General Charles Lee took the position during oral argument in ''Hollingsworth'' that the Eleventh Amendment had been properly proposed, and Lee's argument was reproduced together with the opposing argument and the Court's decision in the case.〔 Here is the exchange between Attorney General Lee and Associate Justice Chase during oral argument:〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Hollingsworth v. Virginia」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|