Except for the 2nd amendment, the Bill of Rights is basically a dead letter these days. Don’t neeed to repeal sections of the Constitution any more.
quote;
Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and protects the defendant/prosecutor only if he/she can show that his/her actions “did not contravene clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in his position should have known.” In other words, you don’t get prosecutorial immunity for murder, stealing, or pillaging. (There may be prosecutorial immunity for lying in the course of presenting the State’s case, but that’s debatable.)
qualified immunity, more accurately is an affirmative defense that only municipalities can use. It weakens sovereign immunity held by the feds and state, therefore Feds are involved, sorry Agis, but you should delete your interpretation, it is baseless and full of fallacy and error. It does not derive from common law, it derives from "divine given authority to be free from question of subjects of a Sovereign Ruler, referred to not as King George III, but a “despot.” They didn’t want people, like you have done, to misconstrue despotism as a good idea but abused by King George III. Without Despotism you remove the jus cogens “doctrine of immunity” and you have the USA, from 1776 to 1795. So in a sense you are right, in that common law was rule by England, and we ended it. The 11th amendment is England, but term limited for 2 to 4 years, a fallacy that tricks the mind into believing we have a democracy
But google, “can prosecutors frame defendants,” and there are many reasons this happens, the most arbitrary is to win, but by sociopathic prosecutors who just don’t care about human life, as long as they win.
see LA Times Supreme Court takes dim view of suing prosecutors
Thompson v. Connick, that’s right, Harry Connick Jr. gran pappy is a crooked prosecutor, according to the case. 30 days before execution date, blood type freed the death row Thompson, and 5 prosecutors hid this from the very start. One prosecutor made a death bed confession, and it was hid.
Then the Pottowamie case.
all stemming from the “doctrine of Immunity,” what the declaration called a “right inestimable and formidable for tyrants.”
repealthe11thamendment, you might have more luck convincing people if you post in English.
Ha that is hilarious! If you can apply the 11th amendment defense in federal courts you can apply it state courts, but never vice versa, something called the Primacy clause I think.
Federal and state can be sued for injunctive relief, and also for punitive damages, if their offenses are “ad hoc” and do not affect policy that affects “far reaching” “everyone.” Seen US Bogan v. Scott, and a good explanation Norse v. Santa Cruz, referencing Kaahumanu v. City of Maui 2005.
Typical of the socialist or conservative thug who cannot defend the eleventh amendment with rationality, because they love abuse of power, the basis for molesters of rights and.
Always reverts to the lowest form of intelligence, ad hominem abuse.
come on with some fact and show my fallacy! don’t be weak like that!
This isn’t appropriate for this forum, repealthe11thamendment. You’re not allowed to make personal comments about other posters. They’re allowed to comment on your arguments and your posts, and you can do the same. You can’t call them thugs or other names. Please don’t do this again.
Bogan v. Scott-Harris states that it repeals the First Amendment right to redress a grievance.
I think Jim B. recognizes this and sees the absurdity to have a first amendment give us a right and then an 11th amendment remove that same right.
Though the amendment says nothing about repealing the First Amendment, logic says it must, if suits are barred, then the Petition Clause is made moot under a so called right to redress a grievance.
Bogan says this, “Even if corrupt…the law will not tolerate a citizens redress…” a [grievance.] This was in 1998. Well, my question is why don’t we know this? We say the opposite. I notice it, and quote it, and those pundits who take a stab at defending the 11th get all pissy. I too sometimes and very kurt, because this is such a simple fix, to remove the amendment. If the defense is using the “over-deterrence” theory to justify it, then, it is true that the defense admits that the 11th amendment cultivates corruption, as “Bogan” stated, by barring suits against corruption.
Our country is in such shambles, and this is an obvious place to look. Oh my looky looky, “corruption” is a constitutional right golly gee batman, do you think that the diabolical coup of the 11th amendment might be the culprit? Not one person on the www thinks so but men who have minds like Jim B. Not fully understanding the underlying essence, but just on its face are able to see the evil of it. Shame on the rest of us, I included. I’ve spent 6 years studying this disgusting law, and I cannot see any logical or basis, or example, other than dark age inquisitions, which birthed it in the first place, see Bartolis of Sassofforotus in the 14th century, “par en parem non habet imperium,” an equal cannot rule over an equal. Surely under the 14th amendment, public employee citizens are equal to private citizens? No they are not because they get immunity for negligence and corruption.
Its bad law in a democracy, great law in a despotism or dictatorship, in fact this law cannot be in a government and logically say there is freedom from abuse of government because it successfully ends 42 USC 1983 type suits, abuse of power under the color of law.
That is what is going on in the countries we are at war with, yet it goes on here, and makes us hypocrites.
“not appears” did in fact come from Justice Wilson’s opinion. He said he was an eye witness to the fact that sovereignty did not belong in this government. It was justice Iredell who told congress in his opinion that they should “seek another means” of introducing sovereignty. Two days later the bill appeared anonymously to start the process of introducing what is called “extractive institution” to immunize themselves, thus keeping democracy from stripping the King" from his wealth, if he could be held liable for abuse of power, THUS SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY!
OH YES THAT’S WHAT WE WANTED IN OUR DEMOCRACY SURE IT IS UM HUMMM IT WOULD BE A STRETCH OR SLIPPERY SLOPE TO THINK OTHERWISE BY GUM!
Response:
The author of article III section 3 is James Wilson. Again, Wilson, in Chisholm v. Georgia stated that “to the constitution the word sovereign is totally unknown.” He also signed the Declaration of Independence, and if you notice, King George III is not mentioned, only the “right inestimable and formidable for tyrants,” which they referred to as “despotism.”
In Chisholm Justice Wilson explained the reason for leaving out the word “sovereign” was so that no one, not even the people, later would attempt to be “sovereign.” I guess some may not be able to tie the word sovereign to phrase, “the eleventh amendment.”
The 11th amendment is Sovereignty, under the jus cogens “doctrine of immunity.” For a better history see the analogical title “Sovereign Immunity and the Violation of Human Rights,” Professor Jurgen Brohm. These two concepts are dependant upon each other, and cannot live without each other.
So are those supporting the Eleventh Amendment evil tyrant abusers, or do they simply not understand the distinction? Understanding this has to do with ability to decipher categorical syllogism. So if your adversary in argument cannot do this, it is pointless, but I believe not all are unable to learn. What amazes me is the level of education, some have that are hung up on supporting this akin to drowning Witches to test their innocence of guilt, absurd so called accepted by democracy “common law.” Nobody ever heard of this stuff, and the first ad hominem bully comes citing a few facts, people don’t want to check the math and they ignore a fallacy that should have fallen by the Copernicus paradigm shift.
Look at this false assertion of fact "It’s not “federal courts, keep out of state affairs.” It’s “federal courts, keep out of affairs between states and citizens of other states.”
The passage of the 11th Amendment was a direct result of Chisholm v. Georgia, in which the US Supreme Court ruled that federal courts had jurisdiction over suits against states by citizens of other states based on Article III, §2 of the Constitution.
In effect, it removed “between a state and citizens of another state” from Article III.
James Wilson pointed to what is called “subject matter.” He said, Georgia was committing a “perversion of genus species” by attempting to reclaim “sovereign power” that was ended by the blood of the fallen patriots. All this diversion to article III by hearsay affiants 200 years later, has been able to controvert history, in the face of an Eye Witness, James Wilson, an Author of Article III, and yet here is “Really not all that Bright” ignoring this and pointing you to the article, witness helped write! Oh my god! Perversion of Genus Species!
This discussion is far from partisan politics, and typical ad hominem abuse is exempt, and only, but pointing out fallacy by individuals who conceal and acquiesce to this deceit must have some bite to it. I hope you understand.
All you have to do is read the Constitution article III. It says, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases… 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.
Geez, look at that, it contradicts the 11th amendment, so the amendment amends it. This perfectly legal, except that the 11th amendment is sovereignty and replaces democracy under the rule of law, because the premise of the 11th amendment is that laws are ignored when it comes to “rule of law” violations. Is that still too difficult to comprehend?
It does not follow logic in a democracy by allowing abuse of power to exist, and simply stating, “Oh well, it is old common law, nothing we can do, you can’t change it.” I thought they outlawed lobotomy?
Forget Canada! Jim was just pointing to the fact that they consider it. We don’t our citizens, including myself volunteer for war, not knowing that we support the right for our government to abuse us, under the 11th amendment. I wouldn’t do it again had I known I was allowing government to get away with almost anything the press doesn’t hammer on.
In UK and Germany, they too had some form of abandoning the doctrine of Immunity. IN fact Germany did it in 1945. GEE I WONDER WHY. WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO CAUSE THEM TO ABANDON THE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO ABUSE POWER! OH NO! WE WANT THAT RIGHT IN THE USA! WE’LL NEVER ABANDON IT OR DEBATE IT OUTSIDE OF THIS FORUM RIGHT HERE,
or of course it is also debated at www.the11thamendment.com among our group.
We don’t know it exists, our electorate who are better described as proletariat, because it isn’t hid, its the freekin 11th amendment, actually the first amendment that undid the bill of rights, how clever. NOBODY EVEN NOTICED, NOT EVEN BEN FRANKLIN!
o ROIT MAYT OWS AT FO YA! THAT BLOODY BE A FO YA ?
EAR EYE NOSE YOU! YUA THE BLOKE THAT LOYKS THE BLOYTA 11TH AMENDMENT.
how that for “english.” a bit of cockney perhaps, but english.
Exactly! The first amendment was repealed by the 11th and perhaps any other bill of right that you would bring to the bar.
I encourage those to look at a cause of this blindness.
google “change blindness”
here is an op ed article, take with a grain of salt, StockExaminer - AI-Powered Stock Chatbot
here is a scholars viewpoint http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKYB-WwkqE8&feature=topics
i MADE NO PERSONAL COMMENT, ABOUT THE PERSON ONLY ABOUT FACTS. WILL DELETE ANY INAPROPRIATE COMMNENTS, OR ALLOW ME TO EDIT THEM.
AGAIN, I INTEND NO PERSONAL ATTACK, SOMETIMES I DO GET A BIT ANNOYED, ONLY REGARDING THIS TOPIC. I JUST SAW YOUR WARNING, AND WILL TRY NOT TO BE ABRASIVE.
THIS TOPIC IS IMPORTANT TO ME, AND I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright
repealthe11thamendment, you might have more luck convincing people if you post in English.
I was commentig on this “innapropriate” sugestion that I was not of this “national origin” and could not write in English.
Are you okay with that? I just pointed to that comment as “typical ad hominem.”
I predict that you are not long for this board.
Dial back the ALL CAPS while you’re at it. It is rude.
Also, there’s this Multi-quote thing where you can quote multiple posts within one response. Posting multiple responses in a row is generally considered a bad idea.
You called him a thug: you said his comment was “typical of the socialist or conservative thug who cannot defend the eleventh amendment with rationality.” You can only edit your comments for a couple of minutes after you post them and we don’t go back and delete them. Just don’t call people names.
Yes, I can see that from the caps lock.
He was commenting on your writing style, not your “national origin.” And you could stand to write more clearly. Describing a post as an “ad hominem” is OK. Casting aspersions on someone’s character based on what they have posted is not OK.
I’m sorry..this is so petty…but I thank you for educating me on avoiding faux pas.
If we were in a room, and there was a fire, and I couldn’t speek, and I typed a message in all caps or a bt msepelld lkie tihs wood it mke a deforance?
could you leave the building safely?
Better question: If there were rules to a board and you couldn’t follow them, could you remain unbanned? :dubious:
Let’s get back to the topic rather than discussing the forum rules, please. This isn’t the place for it.