Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sir pball

(5,346 posts)
49. What's this "total immunity" of which you speak? "Sovereign Immunity" covers it, Constitutionally!
Sat May 18, 2013, 08:51 PM
May 2013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

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. See Gray v. Bell, 712 F.2d 490, 507 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not as broad waivers of sovereign immunity as they might appear, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.


I won't ever argue that it's right, but unless the Feds say you can sue them, you simply CANNOT. Same goes for most governments worldwide...they all operate with total immunity. "It's good to be King!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

K&R DeSwiss May 2013 #1
This is awful. oldandhappy May 2013 #2
We should vow that, one day, no matter how many years or decades hence, The Stranger May 2013 #3
Amen sikofit3 May 2013 #13
Pres Obama on start of 2nd term: 'You start thinking about history and a longer sweep of time" dixiegrrrrl May 2013 #4
He is the Commander-in-Chief..... DeSwiss May 2013 #18
When it comes to Guantanamo, the US government IS Ariel Castro. Comrade Grumpy May 2013 #5
The difference is total immunity. tblue May 2013 #16
What's this "total immunity" of which you speak? "Sovereign Immunity" covers it, Constitutionally! sir pball May 2013 #49
K&R. nt OnyxCollie May 2013 #6
WTF is wrong with this administration? blackspade May 2013 #7
I know. tblue May 2013 #17
Torture is now legal in the U.S. Kelvin Mace May 2013 #8
Kept in this chair until enlightenment May 2013 #9
Either this torture chair was fabricated on site.... blackspade May 2013 #22
It's a combination of a standard prison restraining chair and an ambulance neck brace. Sirveri May 2013 #29
I'd imagine it's what they use for unresponsive critical anorexics.. sir pball May 2013 #50
Can Nobel prizes be rescinded? Pterodactyl May 2013 #10
shameful Kali May 2013 #11
There is no rationale to defend this. rug May 2013 #12
K&R Solly Mack May 2013 #14
Question. Should the government then just let them commit suicide by starving themselves? cstanleytech May 2013 #15
If that's their wish, yes. Demit May 2013 #19
No, they should let them go. Ash_F May 2013 #20
Yes. blackspade May 2013 #21
Really? Could you quote the relevant law that now allows the president cstanleytech May 2013 #28
Really? Is he the commander in chief?? blackspade May 2013 #32
Either you arent a US Citizen or if you are you failed a couple of classes in school. cstanleytech May 2013 #33
Wow. blackspade May 2013 #43
The fail is on you because congress does play a part. cstanleytech May 2013 #44
Yawn.... blackspade May 2013 #46
So, by humane you mean he just should be letting them starve to death? nt cstanleytech May 2013 #47
False dichotomy. The Stranger May 2013 #23
Remember these are NOT convicted felons NOR Prisoners of War happyslug May 2013 #24
Hey I agree they should be tried or released, congress is the one that doesnt. nt cstanleytech May 2013 #27
I agree too temmer May 2013 #37
Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin May 2013 #38
It's the Rethugs fault...they're the ones who won't fund their release. Airline tickets cost money. Auntie Bush May 2013 #39
Actually it is their fault but I think its mainly that they are using the people held there cstanleytech May 2013 #40
You then believe there are two and only two options available? LanternWaste May 2013 #25
More like I am wondering if anyone here has any other viable solutions keeping in mind things like cstanleytech May 2013 #26
Let them die with dignity, like Terry Schiavo. Many of them have already been "released" riderinthestorm May 2013 #45
absolutely horrible Close Gitmo lovuian May 2013 #30
Obama agrees with you cstanleytech May 2013 #34
Except that he doesn't do anything about it. Comrade Grumpy May 2013 #36
Question is though is it cstanleytech May 2013 #41
Again, Rethugs won't fund a transfer to a state prison...or anywhere else. Auntie Bush May 2013 #42
K&R woo me with science May 2013 #31
. libodem May 2013 #35
Al Jazeera first published the full document alp227 May 2013 #48
Where is the honor of the we-were-just-following-orders guards? AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #51
these "Doctors" should lose their credentials riverwalker May 2013 #52
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Guantánamo hunger striker...»Reply #49