Requirement for Consent

The exemption of the United States from being impleaded without their consent is, as has often been affirmed by this court, as absolute as that of the crown of England or any other sovereign. In Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 411, Chief Justice MARSHALL said: 'The universally-received opinion is that [106 U.S. 196, 227] no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States.' In Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527, 529, Chief Justice TANEY said: 'It is an established principle of jurisprudence, in all civilized nations, that the sovereign cannot be sued in its own courts, or in any other, without its consent and permission; but it may, if it thinks proper, waive this privilege, and permit itself to be made a defendant in a suit by individuals, or by another state. And as this permission is altogether voluntary on the part of the sovereignty, it follows that it may prescribe the terms and conditions on which it consents to be sued, and the manner in which the suit shall be conducted, and may withdraw its consent whenever it may suppose that justice to the public requires it.' In the same spirit, Mr. Justice DAVIS, delivering the judgment of the court in Nichols v. U.S. 7 Wall. 122, 126, said: 'Every government has an inherent right to protect itself against suits, and if, in the liberality of legislation they are permitted, it is only on such terms and conditions as are prescribed by statute. The principle is fundamental, applies to every sovereign power, and, but for the protection which it affords, the government would be unable to perform the various duties for which it was created. ' See, also, U.S. v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436, 444; Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 256; U.S. v. McLemore, 4 How. 286, 289; Hill v. U.S., 9 How. 386, 389; Recside v. Walker, 11 How. 272, 290; De Groot v. U.S. 5 Wall. 419, 431; U.S. v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 484, 488; The Siren, 7 Wall. 152, 154; The Davis, 10 Wall. 15, 20; U.S. v. O'Keefe, 11 Wall. 178; Case v. Terrell, 11 Wall. 199, 201; Carr v. U.S. 98 U.S. 433 , 437; U.S. v. Thompson, 98 U.S. 486 , 489; Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

U.S. 337 ; Railroad Co. v. Alabama, 101 U.S. 832 .

20

[U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)]

21

Below is a definition of “sovereign immunity” from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition: 22

Sovereign immunity. Doctrine precludes litigant from asserting an otherwise meritorious cause of action against a sovereign or a party with sovereign attributes unless sovereign consents to suit . Principe Compania Naviera, S. A. v. Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans, D.C.La., 333 F.Supp. 353, 355. Historically, the federal and state governments, and derivatively cities and towns, were immune from tort liability arising from activities which were governmental in nature. Most jurisdictions, however, have abandoned this doctrine in favor of permitting tort actions with certain limitations and restrictions. See Federal Tort Claims Act;

23

24

25

26

27

28

Governmental immunity; Tort Claims Acts. [ Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1252]

29

30

Notice the phrase above “unless the sovereign consents to the suit”. The inherent legal presumption that all courts and 31 governments must operate under is that all natural persons, artificial persons, “associations”, “states” or “political groups”: 32

1.

Are inherently sovereign.

33

"The rights of sovereignty extend to all persons and things not privileged, that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers resident therein; not only to those who are naturalized, and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territory

34

35

36

37

and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."

38

[Carlisle v. United States, 83 U.S. 147, 154 (1873)]

39

2. Have a right to be “left alone” by the government and their neighbor: 40

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by

41

42

43

44

45

civilized men. "

46

[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); see also Washington v.

47

Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)]

48

3. Can only surrender a portion of their sovereignty and the rights that inhere in that sovereignty through their explicit (in 49 writing) or implicit (by their behavior) consent in some form. 50

Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest.

51

What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent. Jenk. Cent. 251. Sed vide Eminent Domain.

52

Id quod nostrum est, sine facto nostro ad alium transferi non potest.

53

What belongs to us cannot be transferred to another without our consent. Dig. 50, 17, 11. But this must be understood with this qualification, that the government may take property for public use, paying the owner its value. The title to property may also be acquired, with the consent of the owner, by a judgment of a competent

54

55

56

tribunal.

57

Requirement for Consent

219 of 396

Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form 05.003, Rev. 7-23-2013

EXHIBIT:________