Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf
Page Number: 22

2 

TORRES v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

KAGAN, J., concurring 

The answer is yes, as the Court holds.  Much more than 
eminent domain, war powers lie at the heart of the Conven-
tion’s plan.  The overriding goal of the Convention was “to
create a cohesive national sovereign in response to the fail-
ings  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation.”    Ibid.  And  among
those failings, none was more important than “the want of 
power  in  Congress  to  raise  an  army  and  the  dependence 
upon the States” to provide armed forces.   Selective  Draft 
Law Cases, 245 U. S. 366, 381 (1918).  For that reason, the 
war powers—more than any other power, and surely more
than  eminent  domain—were  “complete  in  themselves.” 
They were given by the States, entirely and exclusively, to
the Federal Government.  See ante, at 7–12; U. S. Const., 
Art. I, §8, cls. 11–16, §10, cls. 1, 3.  PennEast’s analysis thus 
compels today’s result.  In setting out the “complete in it-
self ” test, the Court there answered the question here: At
the Convention, the States waived their sovereign immun-
ity to any suit Congress authorized under the war powers.