View Poll Results: How do you view sovereign immunity?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Like it

    2 20.00%
  • Don't like it

    7 70.00%
  • Other opinion

    1 10.00%
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Sovereign immunity

  1. #1
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    02-14-17 @ 08:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,352

    Sovereign immunity

    What is your view on the idea of sovereign immunity?
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  2. #2
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,751

    Re: Sovereign immunity

    Quote Originally Posted by Luftwaffe View Post
    What is your view on the idea of sovereign immunity?
    I dont like it, but it appears to be a Common Law concept. Common Law concepts are built on a millenia or more of trial and error, common sense, and collective experience. As such, Sovereign Immunity should be retained.

  3. #3
    A sinister place...
    OrphanSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,860

    Re: Sovereign immunity

    I generally do not like the idea of sovereign immunity. The source idea of comes from the historical context of legal absolutes generally applied to the idea "the king (or the government) can do no wrong."

    It usually has the conclusion of systematic aristocracy, where we have two legally defined classifications of citizens. One that is above the law, and one that is not. In our context, in present application, we are basically saying we elect from the people to no longer be responsible for all of their actions but are able to pass legislation we are responsible to.

    There is real reason that the idea is not mentioned in our Constitution. But, our government enjoys the protection anyway as applied over time. In terms of practical association to other common law interpretation (including some source for our laws,) inference from the power of the court system as established by the Constitution, and various passed Acts over our history that did not get challenged in a manner as to overturn the applied results.

    The good news is there is no solid legal blanket immunity to being in the federal government, the bad news is there has been enough interpretation and passed legislation to ensure that the majority of the time the government can be in the wrong and escape liability for being in the wrong.

    We should though draw the real distinction here on the difference between passing legislation that they immune themselves from having to follow vs. outright illegal activity of which they can be very liable for. But, the only reason that distinction exists in the first place is the concept of "the government can do no wrong," applied to us most often as "the government does not always have to live within the laws they create for the rest of us."
    "Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.

  4. #4
    Black Is Smart
    Van Basten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The New New Frontier
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    4,551

    Re: Sovereign immunity

    Meant to vote "other."

    >_>
    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    There's nothing republicans hate more than people being informed of their rights. The horror.

  5. #5
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    03-22-17 @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,083

    Re: Sovereign immunity

    Quote Originally Posted by Luftwaffe View Post
    What is your view on the idea of sovereign immunity?
    It should be illegal.Those in government should not be above the law.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #6
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:26 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    28,920

    Re: Sovereign immunity

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
    I dont like it, but it appears to be a Common Law concept. Common Law concepts are built on a millenia or more of trial and error, common sense, and collective experience. As such, Sovereign Immunity should be retained.
    I have been asking myself lately why we hold on so tightly to common law. We fought a revolution break away from what we saw as injustices of the British legal system, then we go on and, to a great degree, keep doing what they did 'just because'.
    April Fool's Day is the one day of the year
    that people critically evaluate news articles before accepting them as true.

  7. #7
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    03-24-17 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,751

    Re: Sovereign immunity

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    I have been asking myself lately why we hold on so tightly to common law. We fought a revolution break away from what we saw as injustices of the British legal system, then we go on and, to a great degree, keep doing what they did 'just because'.
    I have read that the influence Common Law principals in our legal system has sharply declined in recent generations and that we are now almost a completely Roman Law (written law code) system.

    The Zimmerman case maybe an example of this in microcosm:

    Common law: must make an effort to retreat.
    Roman law: written SYG Law says otherwise

    Common law: "Come on, everybody knows you can't go looking for a confrontation, then claim "pure" self defense."
    Roman law: " Sigh, there is no written law prohibiting following somebody around."

    In short, my guess is that had the Zimmerman shooting occurred two generations ago, he would have been connvicted of Manslaughter via Common Law principals.

    The jury may not have said "we are going to convict this guy by the technically non existant Common law". Rather, they would have just simply analyzed and applied the written law using a pretty big dose of Common Law principals.
    Last edited by Cryptic; 05-30-15 at 11:35 PM.

Posting Permissions

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