Sovereign Immunity Quotes
President George W. Bush had ignored a federal law and tapped the phones of Americans without probable cause and a warrant issued by a court. The President’s defenders argued that the President, as Commander in Chief, has the Constitutional responsibility to lead the military and protect the nation. Intelligence gathering is part of military activity. Therefore the intelligence gathering is a Constitutional duty and the Congress, under the separation of powers doctrine, may not interfere with the President’s Constitutional Duty to conduct intelligence. Under this doctrine, the President need not obey laws that he believes impinge on his management of the war effort and the defense of the nation. Most legal scholars believe that this argument is nonsense, but the George W. Bush administration has stated the doctrine and it was the subject of much litigation.
The United States Senate must ratify all treaties before they can become effective. The Senate has been very reluctant to ratify treaties where the U. S. government or any of its citizens could come under the jurisdiction of any legal entity which did not abide by all the rights citizens are guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. As a result, we do not recognize the World Court and the Treaty of Rome for example. The latter is the one that gives the World Court jurisdiction over a high level official who commits war crimes even in his own country. The result is that many dictators who do not want to be constrained by international law, do not sign the treaty fending off any pressure to do so by pointing to the United States. But Rothkopf and others who agree with him have not yet been able to come up with a mechanism that will assure American Constitutional rights to Americans who might be involved with the World Court and allow the court to punish the dictators who abuse their own population. The French would like their laws and constitution to control. The Russians, theirs. The Chinese, theirs. Every American public official takes an oath to defend The Constitution. That is their primary duty. Foreign policy and punishing international war criminals must take a lower priority.
This Government Instruction to British North African Consular Personnel summarized the policies of the British government with regard to British citizens who run afoul of the law while in Morocco and other North African countries. Essentially, the British almost always insisted on a treaty with the foreign governments that gave jurisdiction to the British Counsul to try any Englishman who was accused of a crime. The national government could not put a British Subject on trial of punish him regardless of the crime. Where local people were the victim of the alleged crime, the national government could send an observer to the trial that the British consul held. To many, this was arrogant and insulting to the host governments. As high handed as it seems, there were and still are great problems with differing concepts of justice, different rights protected and different levels of corruption. In many countries “important” local officials can control or influence the decisions of courts, witnesses can be easily bribed lie, and even judges can readily be bought. Even today, the issue of criminal jurisdiction is one of the most important subjects of negotiations between nations. The United States has similar agreements with Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Germany, Japan and other nations where we have armed forces. Generally, the better and more sophisticated and honest the host government justice system is, the more willing modern nations are to allow them jurisdiction over criminal matters. But generally, in the world today, these treaties are the exception. Most criminal jurisdiction is with the national government where the alleged crime takes place.
In the early 18th century, the succession to the Scottish and English Crowns was unclear. As a safety valve and check, this clause was adopted by the Scottish Parliament. This was one of the most radical and anti monarchy laws ever passed. It took the unilateral power of making war and peace from the king & established the principle of ratification of ALL treaties. The law did not last long. It was nullified by the Union between England & Scotland (1707), and the English Parliament specifically repealed the clause in the “Repeal of Certain Scotch Acts of 1707”. This clause, which only remained in force for 3 years, had a profound effect on the modern democracies. The American founding fathers were totally familiar with the recent English history & this law. So the American’s at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, built the principle into the new Constitution giving the Congress the power to Declare War and the Senate to ratify treaties as a check against Presidential power.
In England, the King was above the law. However, impeachment was a tool that could be used against his favorite ministers. In debating the United State Constitution one of the first questions to be determined was whether impeachment could be a tool used against the President or like, England, only the other government officials. Mason argued that the President must be included and his view prevailed. See also Benjamin Franklin: {642885}.
Typical of the times, the king was accountable to no one for anything. 200 years later, most of the world have accepted the principle that no one is above the law and that every leader is accountable to the people.
This is one of the best statements on one of the major reason that terrible leaders stay in power in much of the world but especially Africa. In Uganda, they got rid of the maniacal dictator, Idi Amin, by allowing him to keep some of the money he stole and giving him asylum from world prosecution in Saudi Arabia. It was an unjust and unfair solution as he was never accountable for his crimes against humanity, and he lived well on the money he stole, but thousands of lives were saved and Uganda then was able to grow and develop. It is a Hobsen’s choice for Africa and the World. Both solutions are terrible, and few have ever been able to choose the pragmatic route that was taken in Uganda.
This concept was later formalized in British law. See Blackstone.
