Talk:Sovereign immunity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Liberte, egalite, fraternite!
Is is totally stupid to discuss such issues like this on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and encyclopedia is a thing invented by the enlightement movement, which philosophy also clearly determinded based on pure reason that kings and emperors do not objectively exist and thus the republic was established. There can be no people who are above other people by birth. Therefore no issue regarding people who consider themselves kings, emperors or otherwise monarchs shall be discussed on wikipedia. 195.70.32.136 13:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- whether people become kings may sometimes be an issue of birth, but has historically frequently by election. But immunity is owed to the office, not the person. Sandpiper 10:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bankruptcy
Katz did not hold that the bankruptcy clause in Article I allows Congress to strip states of sovereign immunity. This result is foreclosed by Seminole Tribe, of course. Katz makes the sneaky argument that bankcruptcy proceedings don't implicate sovereign immunity at all.
-
- The deleted sentenced didn't say it gave Congress that power. If the sentence was ambiguous, don't you think the remedy should have been to clear it up instead of strike it all together?
-
-
- Katz: "In bankruptcy, 'the court's jurisdiction is premised on the debtor and his estate, and not on the creditors.' ... As such, its exercise does not, in the usual case, interfere with state sovereignty even when States’ interests are affected. ... [B]ecause the [bankruptcy] proceeding was merely ancillary to the Bankruptcy Court’s exercise of its in rem jurisdiction, we held [in Hood] that it did not implicate state sovereign immunity ... And it [the power to authorize courts to avoid preferential transfers and to recover the transferred property], like the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus releasing debtors from state prisons, see Part IV, infra, operates free and clear of the State’s claim of sovereign immunity. ... Neither our decision in Hood, which held that States could not assert sovereign immunity as a defense in adversary proceedings brought to adjudicate the dischargeability of student loans, nor the cases upon which it relied rested on any statement Congress had made on the subject of state sovereign immunity. Nor does our decision today. The relevant question is not whether Congress has 'abrogated' States' immunity in proceedings to recover preferential transfers." Amcfreely 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Let me try to be as clear as I possibly can. The sentence you removed from the Wikipedia article did not say that Katz held the Bankrupty Clause gave Congress the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity. In the future, please consider making edits for the purpose of improving the article, rather than for the purpose of showing how smart you are or how "sneaky" the Supreme Court was.
-
-
[edit] Sovereign Immunity
There is some confusion in the article between the Sovereign and the Crown. In the UK, the Sovereign is the Queen, and the Crown is the (originally regal) power used on her behalf by the Government. While the Crown is thus protected by the laws and conventions of Sovereign Immunity, it often comes as some surprise, especially to those of us mistaken in the belief that we live in a free and fair democracy, that so is the Queen, personally herself immune from all State prosecution. This was borne out by the investigations in the Paul Burrell trial of 2002. The Sovereign cannot in law be compelled to come to justice, because all legal authority flows from her. Nuttyskin 13:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Material under "Critique"
Dear fellow editors: The following verbiage was inserted by an anonymous user on 20 October 2006:
-
- Supreme Court cases involving soverign [sic; sovereign] immunity have often been among the most devisive [sic; divisive], in many instances decided by a 5-4 vote. Ironically, it is the conservative wing of the court that has fought to maintain and even strengthen a state's immunity from suit in federal court or pursuant to federal law. Given that the Eleventh Amendment on its face does not prohibit these suits against a state by one of its own citizens, it is strange that the very justices who espouse the "original intent" of the Framers would read such a broad meaning into the Eleventh Amendment.
The phrase "among the most devisive" is non-neutral point of view and possibly unverifiable for purposes of Wikipedia. The phrase "in many instances decided by a 5-4 vote" may well be correct, but we would need some examples (actual citations). A sentence beginning with the word "Ironically" is probably, for purposes of Wikipedia, non-neutral point of view. Same for the clause beginning with "it is strange that". Anyone have any additional ideas on this passage? I didn't want to just delete it without saying why. Yours, Famspear 21:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
