• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

danarhea said:
To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?

Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.

Article is here.
Click to expand...
I doubt this is true, it would make her a member of the Bush family now wouldn't it? :lol: I mean only a Bush would support the Royal family.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The idea of private citizens being able to sue foreign governments is ludicrous on its face. In what jurisdiction, exactly, are these lawsuits supposed to be tried? Shall we open our courts to every foreigner who would like to sue our government for every act of war that we have ever committed or subsidized?

I would agree that the Saudi royal family should face consequences for financing acts of war against us-- but our courts are not suitable for this purpose.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you that opening our (US) courts to this type of case would be ludicrous, I would dearly like to see a Court of Law that could without fear or favor handle such cases.

Unfortunately US courts are not as unbiased as we are led to believe, primarily because our Lawyers are political appointees, who 90% of the time judge according to their political leanings.
 
Guess I hit the point there?
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
The_Patriot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The FSIA is one of those exceptions.
 
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:
The_Patriot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

RightinNYC said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
The_Patriot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The_Patriot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why we don't let individuals sue foreign governments and instead leave that authority to our government.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

So can you read Article I Section VIII Clause IV in a vacuum? What about Article II Section I Clause II?

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

RightinNYC said:
Exactly. That's why we don't let individuals sue foreign governments and instead leave that authority to our government.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The_Patriot said:
So can you read Article I Section VIII Clause IV in a vacuum? What about Article II Section I Clause II?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

And that's something that is best addressed through the legislative and electoral process.
 
RightinNYC said:
Why would you read any of it in a vacuum?
Click to expand...

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.

RightinNYC said:
This just doesn't make any sense. People are not "sovereigns" in the way the term is being used in sovereign immunity.
Click to expand...

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.

RightinNYC said:
And that's something that is best addressed through the legislative and electoral process.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority logical fallacy.

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Appeal to the majority logical fallacy.

RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom