Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
Sovereign immunityThe prerogative may be exercised in person or by delegation. The prerogative of conferring honours is generally (though not necessarily) exercised by the king in person, as in the case of investment with knighthood and military or civil decorations. The delegation of the prerogative often takes place by commission, issued with or without a joint address from both houses of parliament. Parts of the prerogative—generally in the nature of profit, and so in derogation of the revenue of the Crown—may be 1 There is no difference in the prerogative as exercised by a king or a queen regnant, so that the word " king " in its constitutional sense includes queen. That the queen regnant has the same rights as a king was declared by I Mary sess. 3, c. I. conferred upon subjects by grant in letters patent, which will be presumed after enjoyment by the subject for a certain time. What in the king is a prerogative becomes a franchise in the subject, e.g. chases, warrens, wrecks, treasure-trove, courts-leet. The existing prerogatives may be divided, with Blackstone, into such as are direct and such as are by way of exception; or perhaps better, with Chief Baron Comyns, into those affecting external relations and those affecting internal relations. Under the first class would fall the power of making war and concluding peace. As incidents to this power the king has the right of sending and receiving ambassadors, of concluding treaties, and of granting passports, safe-conducts, letters of marque and reprisals. These rights may be limited by international agreement; thus the Declaration of Paris, 1856, abolished privateering as far as the assenting nations (of whom Great Britain was one) were concerned. The prerogatives affecting internal relations may be conveniently, if not scientifically, classified as personal, political, judicial, ecclesiastical and fiscal. Personal.—In order that there may always be an existing head of the state the king is regarded as a corporation. He cannot die; there can only be a demise of the Crown—that is, a transfer of the royal authority to a different person. On the same principle the king cannot be under age, though in cases where the king has been of tender years a protector or regent has usually been appointed for administrative purposes. The king is personally irresponsible for crime or tort, it being an ancient common law maxim that the king can do no wrong, and that any injury suffered by a subject at the hands of the king is to be attributed to the mistake of his advisers. A curious consequence of this irresponsibility is that the king is apparently the only person in the realm who cannot under any circumstances arrest a suspected felon, for no action for false imprisonment would lie against him, and in the event of the arrest of an innocent person there would be a wrong without a remedy. He cannot be guilty of laches, or negligence. The maxim of the common law is " Nullum tempus occurrit regi." This is still the law in criminal matters. With a very few exceptions, such as prosecutions for treason and offences against the customs, no lapse of time will in England (though it is otherwise in Scotland) bar the right of the Crown to prosecute. The king is exempt from taxation on the ground that, as the revenue of the realm is his prerogative, it is useless for him to tax himself. But lands purchased by the privy purse are liable to taxation (39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 88, s. 6). He is also exempt from tolls (which can only exist as a franchise granted by him), and from the poor-rate, as he is not mentioned in the Poor Law Acts. His person cannot be arrested or his goods distrained or taken in execution. The privilege of exemption from taxation applies to his palaces and to the public buildings of the state. No kind of judicial process can be executed in a palace as long as it continues to be a royal residence. The privilege does not attach to palaces which the king has ceased to use as a dwelling, such as Hampton Court. The king has also several personal privileges of minor importance, such as the title of "majesty," the right to a royal salute, to the use of the royal standard and of special liveries, &c.
quote:
When the Constitution was ratified, it was well established in English law that the Crown could not be sued without consent in its own courts. See Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 437-446 (1793) (Iredell, J., dissenting) (surveying English practice); cf. Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410, 414 (1979) ("The immunity of a truly independent sovereign from suit in its own courts has been enjoyed as a matter of absolute right for centuries.
quote:
The doctrine of sovereign immunity was a familiar doctrine at common law. "The principle is elementary that a State cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent." Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U. S. 337, 339 (1880). It is an "established principle of jurisprudence" that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts without its consent. Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527, 529 (1858). We cannot conclude that § 1983 was intended to disregard the well-established immunity of a State from being sued without its consent.[7]
quote:
"That a State may not be sued without its consent is a fundamental rule of jurisprudence having so important a bearing upon the construction of the Constitution of the United States that it has become established by repeated decisions of this court that the entire judicial power granted by the Constitution does not embrace authority to entertain a suit brought by private parties against a State without consent given: not one brought by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign State, because of the Eleventh Amendment; and not even one brought by its own citizens, because of the fundamental rule of which the Amendment is but 99*99 an exemplification." Ex parte State of New York, 256 U. S. 490, 497 (1921) (emphasis added).[8]
quote:
A State's constitutional interest in immunity encompasses not merely whether it may be sued, but where it may be sued.[9] As JUSTICE MARSHALL well has noted, "ecause 100*100 of the problems of federalism inherent in making one sovereign appear against its will in the courts of the other, a restriction upon the exercise of the federal judicial power has long been considered to be appropriate in a case such as this." Employees v. Missouri Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 411 U. S. 279, 294 (1973) (concurring in result).[10] Accordingly, in deciding this case we must be guided by "[t]he principles of federalism that inform Eleventh Amendment doctrine." Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678, 691 (1978).
quote:
On its face, the Eleventh Amendment applies only to suits against a State brought by citizens of other States and foreign nations.[17] This textual limitation upon the scope of the States' immunity from suit in federal court was set aside in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890). Hans was a suit against the State of Louisiana, brought by a citizen of Louisiana seeking to recover interest on the State's bonds. The Court stated that some of the arguments favoring sovereign immunity for the States made during the process of the Amendment's ratification had become a part of the judicial scheme created by the Constitution. As a result, the Court concluded that the Constitution prohibited a suit by a citizen against his or her own State. When called upon to elaborate in Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313 (1934), the Court explained that the Eleventh Amendment did more than simply prohibit suits brought by citizens of one State against another State. Rather, it exemplified the broader and more ancient doctrine of sovereign immunity, which operates to 141*141 bar a suit brought by a citizen against his own State without its consent.[18]
quote:
The Eleventh Amendment makes explicit reference to the States' immunity from suits "commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U. S. 713*713 Const., Amdt. 11. We have, as a result, sometimes referred to the States' immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity." The phrase is convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, for the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.
YEH YEH YEH......
50 united kings of america.
blah blah blah!
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
Whats better? 50 Sovereign Kings of America? or just on... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread