How Sovereign Immunity Works

Sovereign Immunity: the legal concept that the state cannot be sued. In this lecture, professor Lindsay Robertson explores the fascinating story of how this concept, derived from the British crown, was adapted to the structures of the U.S. constitutional system.

[williampounds]

Sovereign immunity law needs to be rewritten so the lawmakers and beurocrats can be held accountable for their lies. Alot of corruption would stop.

[innaminute]

I'm not driving, I'm traveling 😂

[UndertakerUber]

“Sovereign immunity”

The concept that turns all of the people’s rights into toothless suggestions for politicians to respect at their consent.

_“We fully support the constitutional rights of the people, but if we’re ever sued for violating a person’s rights, we’ll respond by saying that we don’t have to face any consequences for violating their rights. When we violate federal or state laws, we shouldn’t be punished or have to provide restitution for the people we harmed. But if the people break the law, oh well…THAT’s different. They get jail time and they owe us money in compensation and punitive damages. Yup, that’s all fair and good! No consequences for us, but tons of life ruining consequences for the Average Joe!”_

[lance]

If I obey laws because I'm told I should and just accept that teaching, you might call me a "sheeple."
How many people have checked out what this guy and others like him are saying? Or do you just accept it without thinking?
Isn't that the definition of sheeple?

[colind]

There is a reason why no Sovcit had ever won a meaningful court decision. Most have been arrested and jailed at some point.

[josephalmond]

Am I being detained? Am I being detained?

[JWPeace_MyBoys]

I have learned so much I just wanted to share that we all have to choose either God or Baal courts

[jon--]

I read today in my law book that British parliament is sovereign but you can sue an individual in their name ; )

[earlaweese]

*People should be able to sue the United States— it’s called justice for ALL.*

[nocommentnoconsent]

In order to apply sovereign immunity such applies to a person of living status as corporate states are a sperson but not of living nature there for such immunity doesn't apply to state there by such is void.

[deadman]

Careful here. Section 2 of Article III says,

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State, —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. (emphasis added)

"[T]o Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party" is clearly against sovereign immunity for the United States. "[B]etween a State and Citizens of another State" was amended away with the Eleventh Amendment, mostly because states didn't want to pay their debts for the Revolutionary War. If sovereign immunity were so well established, why was there a need to amend the constitution? And nobody has amended away the bolded part. Sovereign immunity for the *federal* government just seems to be something federal judges decided, and pretty gradually as well.

It's generally regarded as starting with _US v. Clarke, _ 33 US 436, 443 (1834) ("[T]he United States are not suable of common right...") But why should common right matter, especially as "[t]here is no general federal common law." _Erie v. Tompkins, 304 US 64, 78 (1938). If there was none a century later, there certainly wasn't any in 1834. The Supreme Court wasn't clear until the late 19th Century: "The United States possess other attributes of sovereignty reasting also upon the basis of universal consent and recognition. They cannot be sued without their consent." _US v. Thompson, _ 98 US 486, 489 (1879), and "Despite its myriad and sometimes questionable underpinnings, federal sovereign immunity remains an entrenched tenet of our law—a point of departure unquestioned." _Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick RR, _ 109 US 446, 451 (1883).

So it's a case where the Founders wanted things one way, and the judges wanted things another way, and so the judges got their way. Which should remind you of everything else judges did to the constitution.

[auditingtyranny]

Gotta love this video especially with what America is going through

[aaronyarb]

Wow... so the federal government has the power to do whatever they want to the citizens and there is legal recourse to prevent them!!!

So is this where the police, other government officials and judicial officers get their qualified immunity?
And if this is unconstitutional why is still enforced? Why can't we sue to have it removed?

[jerrycoker]

Actors for the state, any state, are employees of the People, who are the members/The state body, the body of electors, of law makers..We the People.

[wethepplwhorblackerthanblu]

What everybody is clearly missing is the point that was made in the movie Matrix 2 -The Restaurant Scene

[drcolster]

BASICALLY THE COURTS SAY, "WE WILL LOSE "-SO LETS CAHNGE THE LAWS TO SUIT US..NO JUATICE IN WRITTEN LAWS...

[urdude]

This is absolutely absurd and means to me that we have never had full legal rights.

[TheIrishdriven]

Piliticians should be addressed with a breach of contract suit personally demanding their resignation and bar from public service for breach of contract

[adamhoffman]

They're only immune if acting in public capacity for Lawful dejure government. If acting in private capacity for defacto corporate government, they are NOT immune and the man/woman acting as...can be prosecuted in common Law.