Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

  1. #41
    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
    Why would you read any of it in a vacuum?
    You read the clauses in a vacuum because they are entirely self contained, with the exceptions of the Article I Section VIII Clause I and a few other clauses that place limits on what the government can do.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    This just doesn't make any sense. People are not "sovereigns" in the way the term is being used in sovereign immunity.
    It does make sense since here is the legal definition from Bouvier's American Legal Dictionary for sovereign.

    SOVEREIGN. A chief ruler with supreme power; one possessing sovereignty. (q. v.) It is also applied to a king or other magistrate with limited powers.

    2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people. Vide Rutherf. Inst. 282.


    I'll even toss in my state's Constitution Article I Section I to show that the people have sovereignty while the government does not.

    Section 1. That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And that's something that is best addressed through the legislative and electoral process.
    Actually no, since that would be a violation of Article IV Section II Clause I's guarantee of privileges and immunities held by the citizens of the several states.

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    Since this does bring up the privileges and immunities of the citizens I can bring in Missouri's Article I Section I Clause II into this since it's applied to all citizens from other states.

    Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.

    By the government blocking the rights of the sovereigns from suing a foreign citizen they are denying the sovereign citizen of their equal rights and opportunity under the law and the government has failed to do what it was designed to do in its chief design. Everyone has the right to sue others in the court of law.

  2. #42
    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

    I'm not going to get into a huge thing with you about this, as I doubt we're ever going to see eye to eye. However, regardless of whether you want to believe what I'm saying is theoretically right, you have to acknowledge that there there's no legal scholar I've ever heard of who would agree with your argument, which is why pretty much every authority lines up against you.

    The doctrine of sovereign immunity has absolutely zero to do with individuals. It goes back over 1500 years and has always meant immunity of the state. You're free to argue that sovereign immunity protects people and not the government, but you're paddling against the current with that one.

    As to the argument that everyone has the right to sue everyone in a court of law: If that's true, then wtf are these "standing" and "jurisdiction" things that judges keep talking about? Civ pro would have been so much easier if only I'd known this back then.
    Last edited by RightinNYC; 06-03-10 at 04:09 PM.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #43
    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 going to get into a huge thing with you about this, as I doubt we're ever going to see eye to eye. However, regardless of whether you want to believe what I'm saying is theoretically right, you have to acknowledge that there there's no legal scholar I've ever heard of who would agree with your argument, which is why pretty much every authority lines up against you.
    Appeal to authority logical fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The doctrine of sovereign immunity has absolutely zero to do with individuals. It goes back over 1500 years and has always meant immunity of the state. You're free to argue that sovereign immunity protects people and not the government, but you're paddling against the current with that one.
    Appeal to the majority logical fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    As to the argument that everyone has the right to sue everyone in a court of law: If that's true, then wtf are these "standing" and "jurisdiction" things that judges keep talking about? Civ pro would have been so much easier if only I'd known this back then.
    Standing means if you actually have a valid case or not to sue. In this instance, the families of the victims of 9/11 have perfect standing under wrongful death statutes. Jurisdiction applies to where the case is heard and who prosecutes (criminal cases) or hears the case (criminal/civil). Since the Constitution states that the federal courts have original jurisdiction in cases involving US citizens and foreign citizens the cases must be heard.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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