In 1798, why did the Supreme Court hear the case Hollingsworth v. Virginia?

Urlord

Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798),[1] 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. While it is permissible, a Presidential signature is unnecessary. By the same logic, a President is powerless to veto a constitutional amendment which has been officially proposed to the states to ratify. Nov 16 12, 3:56 PM

AyatollahK

First, let's think about what the issue was in Hollingsworth v. Virginia. The Supreme Court had ruled in Chisholm v. Georgia that the diversity jurisdiction included in the Constitution meant that federal courts could hear cases brought by citizens of one state (or of a foreign state) against another state. In immediate response to that, Congress passed and the states ratified a Constitutional amendment -- the 11th Amendment -- that prohibited such suits, in effect overturning the ruling in Chisholm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution The Attorney General then asked the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v. Virginia what to do with all existing suits brought by citizens of one state against another state. The Attorney General believed that they should all be immediately dismissed by the federal courts. That's the actual answer to the question of why the Court heard the case. To finish the story, the people prosecuting these suits raised two objections: first, that the President had not signed the amendment, and second, that it was an ex post facto law, which is blocked by the Constitution. However, the court held that the President's signature was not required, and, on the day after hearing the case, the Court ruled that, in the words of the Attorney General, "[f]rom the moment those who gave the power to sue a state, revoked and annulled it, the power ceased to be a part of the constitution; and if it does not exist there, it cannot in any degree be found, or exercised, elsewhere. The policy and rules, which in relation to ordinary acts of legislation, declare that no ex post facto law shall be passed, do not apply to the formation, or amendment, of a constitution." Thus, the ultimate holding of Hollingsworth was the immediate dismissal of all suits against states brought by citizens of a different state (or of a foreign state). Nov 16 12, 7:22 PM