Talk:Sovereign immunity in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Federal sovereign immunity

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. 67.78.31.166 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I would point out immunity violates the principles of "Check and Balances". That all are accountable should they violate the law. Amendment rights are Amendment Laws, something that's lost on too many people. See Amendment Laws listing the Rights of the People in the Bill of Rights.

174.61.215.220 (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song

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 173.26.193.72 (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)

Misuse of the word "sovereign". If you checked the dictionary, a sovereign is a monarch. A sovereign nation is one ruled by a monarch, such as the United Kingdom (Constitutional Monarchy, monarch is still head of state). United States would be an Independent Nation, not a sovereign nation.

174.61.215.220 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song

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. 71.226.11.248 (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)