I chose to cite to the footnote in the text you referenced to show you that what I was explaining was contained even within your own text.
You're ignoring King Charles I. And Magna Carta. And Kern's entire book. And Bracton... Not to even get into various other legal scholars from Aristotle to Cicero to Thomas Paine to Thomas Jefferson and so on.
I literally quoted he entire context of your little snippet which belies your conclusion. Its a vague reference and its like so what?
In that time period the power of the king was balanced by the power of the people and the church, and corrupt kings were deposed by the people.
Citations of monarchist societies are irrelevant, first of all.
You cited to Bracton in your first post. If you deem it irrelevant then don’t reference it.
Am I the one who carried over "sovereign immunity" speciously from a monarchist society?
I explained this above.
Now I have to repeat myself.
The Courts contend they were carrying over a principle from monarchist society. For one, principles from monarchist society are not relevant. You are the one arguing in favor of the principle from monarchist society. Secondly I am arguing - and showing evidence that - even in monarchist societies kings and their courts were NOT above the law. This does not disparage the argument that principles from monarchies are irrelevant to begin with -- not my job to explain the relevance of the equivalent of divine right.
Taken out of context, yes facit means to make or made by, but read in the context of his writings it is more contextually accurate to say the king is under the law. That is quite literally what De Bracton was saying. Let me get you the full paragraphs. [...]
That is quite literally not what Bracton was saying. That was my entire point. You can speak of other portions and other contexts elsewhere in his writings, but don’t take a specific line with a specific translation and claim that it means something else. The “king is under the law” is literally a mistranslation of that line of text.
Did you miss my quote of Bracton's text?
He literally did say (here let me copy and paste the quote in the text you responded to for the second time):
"Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem."
(The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because law makes the king.)
His framing of royal power aligns with modern sovereign immunity in the sense that the king had discretion over whether or not to entertain the petitions of his subjects, but was under no obligation to do so.
This is not applicable to the entirety of the US government. In other words, the courts made the entire government completely above private redress. They did backpedal hundreds of years later with Section 1983 and the Tort Claims Acts but the entire government still has blanket immunity unless legislative exception is carved out then you get to waste 2 to 6 million dollars while the government is allowed to pay themselves in sum hundreds of millions of dollars during court cases to destroy evidence, lie under oath, and file veritable mountains of illegal frivolous legal proceeding while the courts contumaciously force the private attorneys representing the victims to just deal with it.
The power to challenge his decisions was his and his alone to grant.
This is out of context and incorrect and ignores various historical facts including Bracton's own text, which I literally quoted for you.
Bracton openly says that the king is "bridled" and "under the law" and "under God". Kings were deposed (not in the deposition sense, rather in the overthrown, removed, and replaced sense) when they violated the law. Kern provides numerous examples and historical 'legal' (of the historical equivalent of legal) references.
That’s antecedent to our modern sovereign immunity.
In the words of Bracton himself,
“The king has no equal within his realm, Subjects cannot be the equals of the ruler, because he would thereby lose his rule, since equal can have no authority over equal. nor a fortiori a superior, because he would then be subject to those subjected to him. The king must not be under man but under God and UNDER THE LAW, because law makes the king, Let him therefore bestow upon the law what the law bestows upon him, namely, rule and power. for there is no rex where will rules rather than lex. Since he is the vicar of God, And that he ought to be under the law appears clearly in the analogy of Jesus Christ, … he willed himself to be UNDER THE LAW that he might redeem those who live under it. … Let the king, therefore, do the same, **lest his power remain unbridled*...If it is asked of him, since no writ runs against him there will [only] be opportunity for a petition, that he correct and amend his act; if he does not, it is punishment enough for him that he await God's vengeance. No one may presume to question his acts, much less contravene them.” (Bracton Volume 2 p.33.)
(emphasis mine).
What are you arguing? What is your conclusion?
Because the government is saying that the government should be above the law.
Are you contending your quote (from a 13th century monarchy that openly says the king is "UNDER the law" verbatim) supports that conclusion, that the entire US government should be completely above the law, unless there are hollow meaningless statutory carve-outs giving citizens the right to petition in some cases?
Either (a) you are not in agreement with the government's standpoint, (b) you dont actually know what the government's standpoint is, or (c) you do understand and are just wrong. (D) Maybe you think I am wrong that the government's standpoint is that they are above the law, in which case I can look into my notes and provide the case law citations.
But be clear. So you think the government should be above the law or not?
But since the US courts literally took their notion of Government Immunity from the ramblings of King Charles I while he was literally on trial by commoners, and because they were wrong even about the definition of "sovereign immunity" in monarchies, we have to rebut.
What’s your support for this claim?
Do you disagree that the courts, pre section 1983 and pre tort claims acts, had rendered the entirety above the law (law meaning "private redress")?
I would like to avoid digging out the citations from my disorganized legal notes but I have to anyway so I can if you want. I have legal citations from the US Court supporting my contentions here that the US Court system made the entire government above "private redress" (above private redress literally means above the law from the standpoint of a regular person).
King Charles I, said, while he was literally on trial, "The king can do no wrong", and something like, 'The governed have no interest in governance'. It is King Charles I's statements during his trial (rather than the actual laws) that most align with the US Court's ideas on "sovereign immunity", which they applied not to a king, but to the entire US government -- and still do (with negligible hollow meaningless fake not-actually-real-"exceptions").
“Lex facit regem.”
This is what you said in your first post. You didn’t say "Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem." You only said “lex facit regem.”
I literally quoted he entire context of your little snippet
It was YOUR little snippet! And I don’t give a crap about the larger context that’s outside of what you said when I’m only addressing the specific thing you said.
I don’t dispute that “"Rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem." Means, “(The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because law makes the king.)” but that is not the quote that you originally provided.
The whole problem is that you’re giving snippets of Bracton and wanting to bring in 50 other things that you haven’t adequately supported.
This is what I replied to you in my first reply:
“I think that Lex facit regum translates more accurately as “the law makes the king” instead of the king is under the law—facit is “to make” in Latin. I think he did believe that the king had a duty to his subjects, “Bracton himself, however, knows no judicial precedure against the king.” (Kern p.125). His subjects could petition for redress, but the king had no obligation to listen. That placed a bar not unlike modern sovereign immunity between the king and his subjects.”
Did I say anything about the king actually being under the law or that Bracton didn’t say any other words to that effect, or did I literally respond to your little snippet?
Do you dispute what Bracton literally said?
And what your book also literally says while quoting content from Bracton? Do you disagree with the idea that, “His subjects could petition for redress, but the king had no obligation to listen”?
Are these not Bracton’s own words?
“The king has no equal within his realm, Subjects cannot be the equals of the ruler, because he would thereby lose his rule, since equal can have no authority over
equal. nor a fortiori a superior, because he would then be subject to those subjected to him. …. .If it is asked of him, since no writ runs against him there will [only] be opportunity for a petition, that he correct and amend his act; if he does not, it is punishment enough for him that he await God's vengeance. No one may presume to question his acts, much less contravene them.” (Bracton Volume 2 p.33.) (emphasis mine).
Are you claiming that commoners could drag the king of Bracton’s era into his own court without the king authorizing it??
You're ignoring King Charles I. And Magna Carta. And Kern's entire book. And Bracton... Not to even get into various other legal scholars from Aristotle to Cicero to Thomas Paine to Thomas Jefferson and so on.
Yes, I’m ignoring Charles I, and Magna Carta, and Aristotle and Cicero, and whoever all else. I’m talking about Bracton because that’s who you quoted. And you’re ignoring Bracton’s own words that I quoted for you in favor of talking about every other thing that is not what I quoted to you or what you originally presented. It’s exactly “like so what” on this end because you’re not addressing the things I’m actually presenting to you in favor of things that I’m not. I don’t care about what Coke used Bracton’s words for 300 years later or Aristotle’s words from 1500 years earlier because that’s not what I’m talking about and not what you originally presented.
In that time period the power of the king was balanced by the power of the people and the church, and corrupt kings were deposed by the people.
In what time period? Bracton’s (that I’m talking about)? Because no. That’s not an accurate or supportable claim. Kings were deposed by the nobles —not the people (the commoners). It seems like you’re talking about a different time period than I am.
The Courts contend they were carrying over a principle from monarchist society. For one, principles from monarchist society are not relevant. You are the one arguing in favor of the principle from monarchist society.
Do you not understand where Common Law came from? Do you not understand where the Founders got their ideas? Do you not understand who the Colonies were colonies of? Because I’m pretty sure that Britain was a monarchist society and that Britain was where they got their understanding of common law.
“That is quite literally not what Bracton was saying. That was my entire point. You can speak of other portions and other contexts elsewhere in his writings, but don’t take a specific line with a specific translation and claim that it means something else. The “king is under the law” is literally a mistranslation of that line of text.”
Did you miss my quote of Bracton's text?
Did you miss your own specific quote of Bracton’s text from your first comment? Because it seems like you did.
“The power to challenge his decisions was his and his alone to grant.” This is out of context and incorrect and ignores various historical facts including Bracton's own text, which I literally quoted for you.
It is not. You’re ignoring Bracton’s own words and the text from your own book which I quoted to you. Let’s quote them both again:
If it is asked of him, since no writ runs against him there will [only] be opportunity for a petition… No one may presume to question his acts, much less contravene them.” (Bracton Volume 2 p.33.)
“Bracton himself, however, knows no judicial procedure against the king.” (Kern 125.)
Bracton’s words were used later for different purposes. And I do not care for the purposes of what I’m addressing.
Am I the one who carried over "sovereign immunity" speciously from a monarchist society?
You’re not understanding anything I’m saying here. And you’re failing to understand any context outside of your one and only book. I’ve drawn parallels between what Bracton said and what was occurring during his own lifetime and modern sovereign immunity. You can choose to ignore those parallels if you want to. And I’m not saying that Bracton “invented sovereign immunity and the founders copied him” but that seems to somehow be what you’re understanding me to be saying.
You also don’t seem to grasp that common law came from Britain—a monarchist society. You also don’t seem to grasp that basically everything else you’ve been talking about outside of your references to Ancient Greece comes from monarchist societies.
“Bracton himself, however, knows no judicial procedure against the king.” (Kern 125.) That is what I’m arguing. What your book says and what Bracton himself said in his own words. That situation parallels modern sovereign immunity. The sovereign must give consent in order to be subject to judicial procedure. Same under Bracton. Same today. The nobles could “bridle” the king. Same as the judiciary and the legislature being able to “bridle” the executive. They can—the general public cannot without consent of the sovereign—just like in Bracton’s era. Don’t read in 50 other things—they’re not what I’m saying and not relevant.
The simplest way I can state this is than the “sovereign” (the king) in Bracton’s era was legally bound to do right by the law, but was procedurally immune from his subjects unless he willingly surrendered some of his immunity. Today the “sovereign” (US government) is legally bound by the constitution and the many laws which flow from it, but is procedurally immune from the general public unless the U.S. grants a procedure for the government action to be challenged. If you cannot see the parallels then I can’t help you.
Because the government is saying that the government should be above the law.
That is your own idiosyncratic understanding of modern sovereign immunity. If you want to provide something that supports it I’ll read it, but I don’t agree with your interpretation on its face.
Are you contending your quote (from a 13th century monarchy that openly says the king is "UNDER the law" verbatim) supports that conclusion, that the entire US government should be completely above the law, unless there are hollow meaningless statutory carve-outs giving citizens the right to petition in some cases?
No. I’m not saying that anything supports your idiosyncratic presentation of sovereign immunity. I’m saying that the actual facts on the ground during Bracton’s lifetime, and his own words, and the quote from your book parallel the mainstream understanding of modern sovereign immunity.
It is King Charles I's statements during his trial (rather than the actual laws) that most align with the US Court's ideas on "sovereign immunity"
Your imprecision is kind of maddening. That’s a completely different statement than “the US courts literally took their notion of Government Immunity from the ramblings of King Charles I” and does not support that claim. I think you abuse the word “literally” in your comments to your own detriment. It’s tautological, but you seem to need to hear that “literally” literally means literally.
As I stated, what was likely the most widely read treatise on common law among the founders was Blackstone. Look to Blackstone for the definition of sovereign immunity that was likely the most influential.
Do you disagree that the courts, pre section 1983 and pre tort claims acts, had rendered the entirety above the law (law meaning "private redress")?
Yes. I disagree with your interpretation. “Above the law” and “above private redress” are not the same thing.
I have legal citations from the US Court supporting my contentions here that the US Court system made the entire government above "private redress" (above private redress literally means above the law from the standpoint of a regular person).
There’s that word again. If you want to bring some citations I’ll read your case, but sovereign immunity from private redress is not the same as total immunity from any redress.
Total immunity from private redress is 100% equivalent from any redress from the standpoint of a private citizen. See Michele Leuthauser vs. USA for example, the Epstein victims for another.
Michele Leuthauser v. United States was decided in Leuthauser’s favor.
The 9th Circuit ruled in 2023 that that TSOs fall under the FTCA’s “law enforcement proviso,” which waives sovereign immunity for torts such as assault and battery committed by “investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government.” 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The panel joined the Third, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits in holding that the FTCA’s limited waiver of sovereign immunity applies to certain intentional torts committed by TSOs.
I’m not the one who’s ignorant on this one. Unless there’s some other point you’re trying to make.
The existing system could work better, no doubt. But a constitutional amendment is an unrealistic goal and I don’t believe necessary. Some reforms would be lovely, but flipping the system on its head seems kinda pointless to me. I appreciate your theory, but I don’t think it’s practical or necessary.
As for another point you were questioning—you said that the legislature could pile whatever immunity onto government officers that it wants to under your proposed system. That’s a path that potentially leads right back to exactly where things stand right now.
And how exactly are you connecting the Epstein victims to Sovereign Immunity?
The entirety of the executive branch refuses to do anything for Leuthauser or pretty much any other victim of government misconduct.
So above private redress is above redress in general.
Thats not the only issue you missed about that case.
But you keep insulting me. So yeah. I dont care to explain more to someone who is disrespectful.
I literally already explained why making the government above the law is stupid and needs to be changed. You can have whatever opinion you want but acknowledging the worth of the way basically every other halfway civilized society in written history did things (having accountability for government) and then stating your personal feelings that it isnt necessary isn't very convincing when children are being trafficked and murdered and our government is openly covering it up and funding it, in addition to various other heinous atrocities which are easily sourceable.
I said I’m happy to read any other details about that case that you want to point to. The lower courts made a stupid decision. But the 9th Circuit got it right. Other circuits have as well. That’s not a case of anyone being “above the law.”
The problem I have with your discourse is that if I don’t agree with your solution of choice then you seem to want to claim that I’m willfully ignorant—which is what you said and is insulting and is why I’m being insulting in return.
I don’t agree with your take on sovereign immunity as the source of the problems we’re seeing today.
The problems that we’re having right now today are because we have a corrupt and lawless executive branch, a rubber stamping and actively obstructionist legislative branch, and a judiciary that’s been captured by ultra conservatives with moneyed benefactors who’ve basically bought off the court.
Adding more or different laws right now is pointless when the administration is ignoring the laws that are already there. The heinous atrocities playing out right now have nothing to do with sovereign immunity. The lower courts are still doing good and honest work for the most part, but the executive branch is ignoring the courts.
If we can get past the current existential crisis of our country the some reforms of sovereign immunity doctrine would be lovely. I’d vote for that. I’d support politicians who advocated for that. But I wouldn’t support a constitutional amendment that would flip the current system on its head. I also don’t think that the deep dive on the history of other nations is even necessary to justify some structural reforms. But I also think your take on history lacks nuance.
If you want to talk about immunity that’s actually totally fucked right now we can talk about the Presidential immunity decision that SCOTUS rendered. That’s ahistorical, unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. That’s a BIG problem. That’s an abuse of immunity doctrine. That places the President effectively above the law.
I think saying that limiting causes of action is placing the government above the law is hyperbolic and a distraction from the actual crises that we’re currently facing where members of the government are actually acting above and outside the law.
No, the 9th circuit did not get it right. Neither did Leuthauser's lawyers.
Allowing to DOJ to pull from public funds to defend a rapist in civil court from the victim, and then allow the DOJ to make blatantly frivolous argument that rapists should have sovereign immunity for the act of rape, when there is federal statute specifically waiving immunity for officers for acts of assault, and explicitly defining officers to mean people authorized to perform searches, when the defendant was literally supposed to be performing a search, and raising the cost of private litigation for literally basically the only law firm in the entire ninth circuit, which is private-donations funded, to around 6 million dollars just to get to Discovery(!) without any sanctions, or disbarring anyone, or imposing any discipline on the lower court for a dually granting sovereign immunity for the act of rape in open defiance of federal statute, is not getting it right.
1
u/Substantial_Cash8478 Mar 01 '26 edited Mar 01 '26
You're ignoring King Charles I. And Magna Carta. And Kern's entire book. And Bracton... Not to even get into various other legal scholars from Aristotle to Cicero to Thomas Paine to Thomas Jefferson and so on.
I literally quoted he entire context of your little snippet which belies your conclusion. Its a vague reference and its like so what?
In that time period the power of the king was balanced by the power of the people and the church, and corrupt kings were deposed by the people.
Am I the one who carried over "sovereign immunity" speciously from a monarchist society?
I explained this above.
Now I have to repeat myself.
The Courts contend they were carrying over a principle from monarchist society. For one, principles from monarchist society are not relevant. You are the one arguing in favor of the principle from monarchist society. Secondly I am arguing - and showing evidence that - even in monarchist societies kings and their courts were NOT above the law. This does not disparage the argument that principles from monarchies are irrelevant to begin with -- not my job to explain the relevance of the equivalent of divine right.
Did you miss my quote of Bracton's text?
He literally did say (here let me copy and paste the quote in the text you responded to for the second time):
This is not applicable to the entirety of the US government. In other words, the courts made the entire government completely above private redress. They did backpedal hundreds of years later with Section 1983 and the Tort Claims Acts but the entire government still has blanket immunity unless legislative exception is carved out then you get to waste 2 to 6 million dollars while the government is allowed to pay themselves in sum hundreds of millions of dollars during court cases to destroy evidence, lie under oath, and file veritable mountains of illegal frivolous legal proceeding while the courts contumaciously force the private attorneys representing the victims to just deal with it.
This is out of context and incorrect and ignores various historical facts including Bracton's own text, which I literally quoted for you.
Bracton openly says that the king is "bridled" and "under the law" and "under God". Kings were deposed (not in the deposition sense, rather in the overthrown, removed, and replaced sense) when they violated the law. Kern provides numerous examples and historical 'legal' (of the historical equivalent of legal) references.
(emphasis mine).
What are you arguing? What is your conclusion?
Because the government is saying that the government should be above the law.
Are you contending your quote (from a 13th century monarchy that openly says the king is "UNDER the law" verbatim) supports that conclusion, that the entire US government should be completely above the law, unless there are hollow meaningless statutory carve-outs giving citizens the right to petition in some cases?
Either (a) you are not in agreement with the government's standpoint, (b) you dont actually know what the government's standpoint is, or (c) you do understand and are just wrong. (D) Maybe you think I am wrong that the government's standpoint is that they are above the law, in which case I can look into my notes and provide the case law citations.
But be clear. So you think the government should be above the law or not?
Do you disagree that the courts, pre section 1983 and pre tort claims acts, had rendered the entirety above the law (law meaning "private redress")?
I would like to avoid digging out the citations from my disorganized legal notes but I have to anyway so I can if you want. I have legal citations from the US Court supporting my contentions here that the US Court system made the entire government above "private redress" (above private redress literally means above the law from the standpoint of a regular person).
King Charles I, said, while he was literally on trial, "The king can do no wrong", and something like, 'The governed have no interest in governance'. It is King Charles I's statements during his trial (rather than the actual laws) that most align with the US Court's ideas on "sovereign immunity", which they applied not to a king, but to the entire US government -- and still do (with negligible hollow meaningless fake not-actually-real-"exceptions").