Talk:Sovereign immunity in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Federal sovereign immunity[edit]

Hello, I'm not too familiar with wikipedia practices so I'll leave this for someone more experienced to decide but it seems to me that, "In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit." is an unsupported statement and it would be nice to see a citation or reference to law. (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing a citation as well. I've certainly heard of this before and am, by no means, making the claim that it's untrue, but I would like to see the relevant law on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't know much about editing Wikipedia pages, but I did add a suitable case cite, Gray v. Bell, to the article. The exact quote from the D.C. Circuit is, "The United States is protected from unconsented suit under the ancient common law doctrine of sovereign immunity." In other words, sovereign immunity is a carryover from British common law, and was interpreted by federal courts to apply to the U.S. federal government. Exceptions, or waivers, of this doctrine, such as the FTCA, have been subsequently enacted by Congress. Rpogge (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few quotes from the very first supreme Court (composed by Justices who knew the founders first hand - they likely discussed original intent over dinner), this is from it's 1st "major" case:
“... To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown. There is but one place where it could have been used with propriety. But, even in that place it would not, perhaps, have comported with the delicacy of those, who ordained and established that Constitution. They might have announced themselves 'SOVEREIGN' people of the United States: But serenely conscious of the fact, they avoided the ostentatious declaration. ...”
“... [A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ... with none to govern but themselves ...”
“... In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. ...”
—CHIEF JUSTICE John JAY, Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454 (1793)
As anyone can plainly see, this whole article and even recent decisions of the supreme Court are a total perversion of the original intent and beg the question of if this was an ongoing attempt, via psychological warfare, to overthrow the true sovereign[s] of the United States of America, which is and always was, the People.
That question aside, the fact[s] remain what they are. Read that entire case (Chisholm v. Georgia) for yourselves and you decide if our public servants ever had the authority to claim to be immune from the People. Even the dissenting opinion of that case didn't dissent on the fact that the People are the sovereigns.
Under a true concept of sovereign immunity, pursuant to original intent, it is the People who would be immune to suits by the states and the US. The only party who would have standing to bring a suit against one of the People would be one or more of the People - the only exception being in cases of Murder.
Are Americans even writing and editing these articles? After winning the War for Independence and signing the Treaty at Paris, did the King call home all the Tory Loyalists or did they remain and attempt to succeed where bruit force failed? Are people aware that the International BAR Association is in London? Does the British Crown have a history of invading and attempting to govern other Nations with either bruit force or more subtle means? What is a "coup d'État?"—Christopher Theodore (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This law is based upon a very loose and nebulous definition of sovereign. A sovereign is a king, monarch, or ruler. The federal or state government is no living entity; it is merely and abstract idea. Without said sovereign, any federal and/or state governments can not claim sovereign immunity. There is no sovereign person or physical entity to claim immunity. Even if there were, the presumption of a creator or founder or an institution they create, being immune to his or its own rules and laws, that is dictated and enforced through violent force and threat of imprisonment upon others, under the proclaimed mantle of benefit for them all regardless of their lack of consent, is preposterous. Though this may be a law on the books, it is argument supported only by the thinnest of straw reeds, and if challenged, is wholly open to laid bare for what it is, invalid and contrary to the freedom and best interest of man. (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Questional Legal Foundation[edit]

How can a democratic republic with no sovereign, that derives its rule supposedly from a mandate by the people, claim sovereign immunity, without a sovereign? It can't. Not to mention, the whole idea of a sovereign, or someone who because he is ruler, by the fact that he is ruler (and hasn't been deposed by some unseen hand of god), therefore must have the blessing of a deity and rules by divine right, is bogus argument entirely to begin with...?

I'd also point out that the United States was founded upon rebelling against a sovereign, and on rejecting the idea of sovereignty, kings, and titles of nobility entirely. Indeed, they were very clear on this point.

The short answer is, any claim of United States government sovereign immunity, and any sovereign immunity defense (by the United States government or any country, nation, or state) should be attacked vigorously without relent, by any lawyer worth his salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Constitution was authorized by the people who are sovereign in the USA![edit]

Thus it is the people who individually and collectively are the only true sovereigns. As those born of citizens of the USA in the USA are citizens, they are also born as sovereign. Thus to suggest that it is the United States or each state that is sovereign really has no basis in law as the people never gave up their sovereignty.

The USA has always had a terrible fraudulent capacity to pull the wool over the eyes of a public that at one time had trust in their govt. We are learning through practical experiences that the govt has never been worthy of trust by any citizen.

Judges illegally claim "judicial immunity" when it was never granted them, nor was any branch of govt given authority to grant immunity to anyone. We claim we follow the rule of law and yet the people never granted immunity to anyone, as stated, in their Constitution, which is the Supreme Law and cant be altered by govt without the express consent of the people.

The govt is forcing the people to rewrite the Constitution or amend it to inform the govt that it is not sovereign, inform judges they have no immunity from the laws and Constitution, and states which are in the USA were never given sovereignty by the people and never had sovereignty under law.

The govt has abused the peoples sovereignty and authority and have been a cause of the financial and political failure of this nation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sovereign and Judicial Immunity and the mumbo jumbo coming from legal experts.[edit]

We are taught in history classes and govt. classes that the US is a Constitutional Republic created by the people of the nation. The people gave the govt. a Constitution that says what it can do and what it cant do. The people also gave the each state a Constitution doing the same thing. Those things the people didn't allow or give to govt. was retained by themselves.

This because under our political set up, it is the people who are sovereign not the govt or those in it. But govt. could not and never was trusted. And there is little left to trust in the American govt for it has continually encroached on the peoples sovereignty and taken their individual freedoms from them. How is it that the govt. claims it is immune from suit for failing to comply with the peoples Constitution? Govt. claim they took it from British Law! Yet the sovereign people never granted govt. the authority to do that. The same is true from Judges. The people never gave judges immunity from the damages they caused by violating the Constitution! So govt just illegally or unconstitutionally gave it to themselves based on the illegal sovereign immunity they illegally took from British law without the consent of the people.

The truth is the govt is accountable to no one and is in fact an illegal oligarchy. Removing someone from office doesn't give restitution to the people his acts created. And yet we claim all are equal in America! Oh, really! Those who have studied history will realize that our founders and the people of this country didn't trust courts and always believed judges and courts were the weakest and most corrupt of the three branches. Congress was given a very liberal means to remove corrupt judges for any high crime or misdemeanor, with Congress also deciding what was a high crime and what was a misdemeanor when it came to the acts of a judge. There is no review of an impeachment,so Congress can literally remove any judge for any reason - but they have failed to remove corrupt judges and have little or no oversight of the courts. Yet that responsibility and duty was given them to do.

As there is no basis for sovereign immunity of govt in this country, consequentially there is no basis for judicial immunity. And it is an immunity never authorized by the sovereign people and those people never gave the authority to create such an immunity to any branch of govt and surely not to judges themselves.

Courts claim to have the authority to interpret laws and the Constitution. But the people have always as soveign have always had the authority to set aside any decision of any court. That is among the inherent rights of the people who created the govt and the courts in the first place.

Keep in mind that it is the people who gave the Constitution to govt that can tell govt what it means, not the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7000:9BFB:8C85:5579:F89F:54D6 (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

There is very little logic in that rambling, emotional rant. And, this talk page is not the proper place for this. Famspear (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, several of the posts on this page are similar to this one. Folks, this is not a weblog for discussing sovereign immunity. It's a talk page for discussing ways to improve the article on "Sovereign immunity in the United States." Famspear (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)