clear language of the Eleventh Amendment were necessary, that the Eleventh Amendment was not intended to address the broader issue of federal-question suits brought by citizens. Moreover, the Court’s point is built on a faulty foundation. The Court is simply incorrect in asserting that “the federal courts did not have federal-question jurisdiction at the time the Amendment was passed.” Ibid. Article III, of course, provided for such jurisdiction, and early Congresses exercised their authority pursuant to Article III to confer jurisdiction on the federal courts to resolve various matters of federal law. E. g., Act of Apr. 10,1790, §5,1 Stat. Ill; Act of Feb. 21,1793, §6,1 Stat. 322; Act of Mar. 23, 1792, §§ 2, 3, 1 Stat. 244; see also Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738 (1824) (<HOLDING>); see generally P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P.
holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states holding that federal statute conferred federalquestion jurisdiction in cases involving the bank of the united states holding that because it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the united states court of international trade the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over a matter that was protested or protestable