Editing Chisholm v. Georgia (section)

=== Chief Justice John Jay's Opinion ===
In his opinion, Chief Justice [[John Jay]] begins by breaking down the argument made by the plaintiffs into four different questions:<ref>{{cite web |title=Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/2/419 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |access-date=15 January 2022 |language=en}}</ref>
# ''Can the State of Georgia, being one of the United States of America, be made a party-defendant in any case, in the Supreme Court of the United States, at the suit of a private citizen, even although he himself is, and his testator was, a citizen of the State of South Carolina?''
# ''If the State of Georgia can be made a party defendant in certain cases, does an action of [[assumpsit]] lie against her?''
# '' Is the service of the summons upon the Governor and Attorney General of the State of Georgia, a competent service?''
# ''By what process ought the appearance of the State of Georgia to be enforced?''

In the opening words of his opinion, Justice Wilson stated the essential principle on which the case turned: "This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a State; certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is, whether this State, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States? This question, important in itself, will depend on others, more important still; and, may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one, no less radical than this 'do the people of the United States form a Nation?'"<ref name=Chisholm/>

'''<big>Justice Iredell’s Dissent</big>'''

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Iredell stated, “A general question of great importance here occurs. What controversy of a civil nature can be maintained against a State by an individual? The framers of the Constitution, I presume, must have meant one of two things: either 1. in the conveyance of that part of the judicial power which did not relate to the execution of the other authorities of the general Government (which it must be admitted are full and discretionary, within the restrictions of the Constitution itself), to refer to antecedent laws for the construction of the general words they use; or, 2. to enable Congress in all such cases to pass all such laws as they might deem necessary and proper to carry the purposes of this Constitution into full effect, either absolutely at their discretion, or at least in cases where prior laws were deficient for such purposes, if any such deficiency existed.” Iredell stated that neither of these things was argued in the case, and reasoned that under [[common law]] each State was sovereign, just as under English law, and they could not be sued without their consent.