text: would we have more honorable judges and presidents, if the 11th amenment was repealed? because if it were again easy to sue a state that caused you to be aggrieved, like taking your property without any chance for a hearing.  and by making it easy when the state has clearly done you wrong-illegally-un-constitutionally, you see if, like it was supposed to be, that a state would be held liable, this power, would pay off by because more "honorable" persons would be put in positions of power! i wish things were that easy to conclude without doubt that a court decision is unconstitutional and such has been debated since ratification.  even so, there is merit to your concerns but not in the process you suggest.  to begin with, the eleventh amendment was proposed, almost unanimously, at the first meeting of congress after the decision in chisholm v. georgia [1793] which held that a state was liable to be sued by a citizen of another state or of a foreign country.   the amendment was recognized and upheld by a number of subsequent cases such as hans v. louisiana [1890] which opined, “this amendment, expressing the will of the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all courts, actually reverses the decision of the supreme court.”    while this was going on, there was also the debate between the federal government and the states as to sovereignty as relative to state nullification acts.  that is, a single state legislature deciding that a federal act was unconstitutional and not applicable within the borders of that single state.  this continued until 1868 with the application of the fourteenth amendment [1868] which was upheld in texas v. white [1869].  the point is to get the states back into the game balancing against acts of the federal government.  this can be accomplished with a new amendment recognizing the sovereignty of the states and their individual ability to nullify federal acts within their borders.