Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

  1. #31
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Her argument was absolutely correct. If private citizens were allowed to sue foreign governments in US courts whenever they wanted to, that would have a seriously detrimental effect on the president's ability to conduct foreign policy. That's the entire reason why the FSIA exists. If Congress doesn't like it, it can change it (to some degree).

    Much ado about nothing.
    Actually, her argument is incorrect and unconstitutional. According to Article III Section II Clause I, of the Constitution of the United States, it 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... between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Private citizens can sue a foreign government/citizens and have the case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    Last edited by The_Patriot; 06-03-10 at 01:58 AM.

  2. #32
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Actually, her argument is incorrect and unconstitutional. According to Article III Section II Clause I, of the Constitution of the United States, it 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... between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." Private citizens can sue a foreign government/citizens and have the case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    You have to read the rest of Art. III.

    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.

    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
    The FSIA is one of those exceptions.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #33
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Clause II applies only to classes of people arising from their duties, but since a private citizen is not in any of those classes Clause I applies. Also, Clause II deals with where the trial starts at, which is what original jurisdiction means. Original jurisdiction in this case could start with the federal appeallate courts then work its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States or it could be filed directly with the Supreme Court of the United States. It all depends upon what Congress has made regulations concerning the operations of the courts on the federal level. Historically, lawsuits between American citizens and foreign governments or foreign citizens was handled by the Supreme Court.

    FISA does not apply since it applies only to government employees that are elected, appointed, or hired and in the pursuit of gathering evidence against foreign governments, which does not apply to private citizens.
    Last edited by The_Patriot; 06-03-10 at 02:21 AM.

  4. #34
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Clause II applies only to classes of people arising from their duties, but since a private citizen is not in any of those classes Clause I applies.
    I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but I believe you're mistaken.

    Clause I lists the nine heads of federal jurisdiction. Clause II says that the SC has original jurisdiction for three of them and that it has appellate jurisdiction for the other six, but only subject to the exceptions and regulations that Congress creates. Congress has limited the SC's appellate jurisdiction in dozens of ways over the past 225 years, and the FSIA is one of them.

    Also, Clause II deals with where the trial starts at, which is what original jurisdiction means. Original jurisdiction in this case could start with the federal appeallate courts then work its way up to the Supreme Court of the United States or it could be filed directly with the Supreme Court of the United States.
    This is true.

    It all depends upon what Congress has made regulations concerning the operations of the courts on the federal level. FISA does not apply since it applies only to government employees that are elected, appointed, or hired and in the pursuit of gathering evidence against foreign governments, which does not apply to private citizens.
    I think you're confusing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

    Historically, lawsuits between American citizens and foreign governments or foreign citizens was handled by the Supreme Court.
    No, historically such lawsuits were dismissed out of hand as barred by sovereign immunity.

    Sovereign Immunity has long been the norm in U.S. courts. In an early case, the Supreme Court held that a private party could not sue the government of France. In that case, The Schooner Exchange v. McFadden, 11 U.S. 116 (1812), the Supreme Court concluded that a plaintiff cannot sue a foreign sovereign claiming ownership to a war ship which had taken refuge in Philadelphia. Relying on common law principles, U.S. courts routinely refused to hear claims against foreign governments, even where those claims related to commercial activities. In addition, courts generally relied on suggestions of immunity filed by the U.S. State Department in actions against foreign sovereigns.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...Immunities_Act
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 06-03-10 at 02:30 AM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #35
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but I believe you're mistaken.

    Clause I lists the nine heads of federal jurisdiction. Clause II says that the SC has original jurisdiction for three of them and that it has appellate jurisdiction for the other six, but only subject to the exceptions and regulations that Congress creates. Congress has limited the SC's appellate jurisdiction in dozens of ways over the past 225 years, and the FSIA is one of them.
    Except that FSIA could be classified as unconstitutional since it limits the ability of a sovereign citizen of the United States from suing a sovereign government or private citizen of a foreign country. The US government does not have the power to pass a law like this under the powers delegated. All power is derived from the people of the United States and are the sovereigns.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I think you're confusing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

    No, historically such lawsuits were dismissed out of hand as barred by sovereign immunity.

    Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I stand corrected on that point. I transposed the S in FSIA to FISA. The Saudi ruling family can be sued as private citizens and not as government officials which bypasses the Sovereign Immunity Act.

  6. #36
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Except that FSIA could be classified as unconstitutional since it limits the ability of a sovereign citizen of the United States from suing a sovereign government or private citizen of a foreign country. The US government does not have the power to pass a law like this under the powers delegated. All power is derived from the people of the United States and are the sovereigns.
    How does the government not have the power to limit suits against sovereign governments by creating exceptions to the SC's appellate jurisdiction? Art. III explicitly provides for this.

    I stand corrected on that point. I transposed the S in FSIA to FISA. The Saudi ruling family can be sued as private citizens and not as government officials which bypasses the Sovereign Immunity Act.
    Except they were being sued for official acts. If your claim is based on an official act, you can't get around sovereign immunity by just nominally suing the executive instead of the sovereign entity.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #37
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    How does the government not have the power to limit suits against sovereign governments by creating exceptions to the SC's appellate jurisdiction? Art. III explicitly provides for this.
    Except that the government cannot limit the types of cases with a simple law. It would require a Constitutional Amendment to change the wording of Article III Section II Clause I, which states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,". It doesn't say some, a few, or only these type of cases, but to ALL cases. To change the wording of the Constitution requires an Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Except they were being sued for official acts. If your claim is based on an official act, you can't get around sovereign immunity by just nominally suing the executive instead of the sovereign entity.
    Then the lawyers presenting the case for suing were idiots. If the money came from the Saudi ruling family's private funds it's a private act not a government one. I don't agree with FSIA since it flies in the face of the types of cases the courts can hear and violates the principle of the people of the United Sates being sovereigns. The job of the government is to protect the rights and property of the sovereigns and if a foreign government takes both of those away it's up to the government to act on the behalf of the sovereigns to gain restitution.

  8. #38
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    Except that the government cannot limit the types of cases with a simple law. It would require a Constitutional Amendment to change the wording of Article III Section II Clause I, which states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,". It doesn't say some, a few, or only these type of cases, but to ALL cases. To change the wording of the Constitution requires an Amendment.
    You can't read Clause I in a vacuum. Clause II makes it exceedingly clear that Congress can limit the SC's appellate jurisdiction in most cases. Congress has done so throughout history.

    Then the lawyers presenting the case for suing were idiots. If the money came from the Saudi ruling family's private funds it's a private act not a government one.
    This isn't necessarily true. It's a fact-based inquiry, and I'm sure the lawyers handling the case were far more up to date on the contours of sovereign immunity than you or I.

    The job of the government is to protect the rights and property of the sovereigns and if a foreign government takes both of those away it's up to the government to act on the behalf of the sovereigns to gain restitution.
    Exactly. That's why we don't let individuals sue foreign governments and instead leave that authority to our government.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #39
    Professor
    The_Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    02-06-12 @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    1,488

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    You can't read Clause I in a vacuum. Clause II makes it exceedingly clear that Congress can limit the SC's appellate jurisdiction in most cases. Congress has done so throughout history.
    So can you read Article I Section VIII Clause IV in a vacuum? What about Article II Section I Clause II?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    This isn't necessarily true. It's a fact-based inquiry, and I'm sure the lawyers handling the case were far more up to date on the contours of sovereign immunity than you or I.
    If you're a firm believer in sovereign immunity then it should apply to citizens of the Several States and not the government, after all the people are sovereigns.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Exactly. That's why we don't let individuals sue foreign governments and instead leave that authority to our government.
    Except what did the government do for the families of the victims of Saudi sponsored terrorism? The US government failed to do what it was designed to do, which is protect the rights and property of the sovereign citizens.

  10. #40
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Patriot View Post
    So can you read Article I Section VIII Clause IV in a vacuum? What about Article II Section I Clause II?
    Why would you read any of it in a vacuum?

    If you're a firm believer in sovereign immunity then it should apply to citizens of the Several States and not the government, after all the people are sovereigns.
    This just doesn't make any sense. People are not "sovereigns" in the way the term is being used in sovereign immunity.

    Except what did the government do for the families of the victims of Saudi sponsored terrorism? The US government failed to do what it was designed to do, which is protect the rights and property of the sovereign citizens.
    And that's something that is best addressed through the legislative and electoral process.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •