FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1493151388> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1493151388 startingPage "521" @default.
• W1493151388 abstract "Sovereign has become a place of contest between important values of constitutionalism. On the one hand, constitutionalism entails a commitment that government should be limited by law and accountable under law for the protection of fundamental rights; if the essence of civil liberty is that the law provide remedies for violations of rights, immunizing government from ordinary remedies is in considerable tension with all but the most formalist understandings of law and rights.1 On the other hand, a commitment to democratic decisionmaking may underlie judicial hesitation about applying the ordinary law of remedies to afford access to the public fisc to satisfy private claims,2 in the absence of clear legislative authorization. These competing and important values can and should be worked out without reliance on the abstract or dignitary notions of sovereignty implicit in the very phrase immunity. As I suggest below in Part I, federal sovereign was a doctrine of limited effect in the early years of this republic and allowed for a number of remedies for governmental wrongdoing. Moreover, the constitutional provenance of federal immunity is obscure, and was a matter of genuine uncertainty in early years. Over time the doctrine developed, drawing support from some aspects of constitutional architecture as well as from unreasoning and mistaken extensions of other versions of immunity. Among the strands of constitutional structure behind federal immunity are Congress' powers over appropriations and the jurisdiction of the federal courts, powers that do not necessarily require but may help explain the early attraction of sovereign as a doctrine. As described in Part II, the immunity doctrine has been dynamic, not static, as judges make choices about how broadly or narrowly to characterize its reach in response to legislation by Congress. In the inter-branch dynamic, both Congress and the Court have refrained at critical junctures from pressing constitutional limits, a restraint that has created an arguably beneficial ambiguity about the relationship of the judicial power to the legislative power in resolving claims against the government. Yet given the adverse effects of sovereign on courts' capacities to provide individual justice, it is past time for that dynamic to move back towards more restrictive understandings of the doctrine's scope. In Part III, I consider federal sovereign immunity's relation to aspects of the idea of judicial independence embodied in Article III of the United States Constitution. Doctrines that article III courts will not enter ineffective or advisory judgments, nor judgments subject to legislative or executive revision or direction, coalesce in cases involving claims against the government, in ways that suggest that sovereign may have been thought to preserve an aura of judicial independence. In light of the competing constitutional norms at stake and the well-established independence of the federal courts today, I end by urging re-interpretation of federal sovereign doctrines so as to close rather than widen remedial gaps in the law. I. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, ITS MEANING, HISTORY AND SCOPE Sovereign immunity's meaning is contested and contestable.3 If we assume that it is a rule that the government cannot be sued without its consent, it is a rule that-unless consent is presumed from the Constitution-stands in tension with Marbury v. Madison4's assertion that the essence of civil liberty is that the law provide a remedy for the violations of rights. Judicial remedies not only protect individual rights but can function as an important mechanism of government accountability. To the extent that sovereign protects the government from being held to account through generally available judicial remedies, it is in considerable tension with these rule-of-law essences. …" @default.
• W1493151388 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1493151388 creator A5061758893 @default.
• W1493151388 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W1493151388 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1493151388 title "Suing the Federal Government: Sovereignty, Immunity, and Judicial Independence" @default.
• W1493151388 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W1493151388 type Work @default.
• W1493151388 sameAs 1493151388 @default.
• W1493151388 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W1493151388 countsByYear W14931513882013 @default.
• W1493151388 countsByYear W14931513882017 @default.
• W1493151388 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1493151388 hasAuthorship W1493151388A5061758893 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C129161804 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C186229450 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C48764862 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C555826173 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C70999106 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C129161804 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C144024400 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C17744445 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C186229450 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C18650270 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C190253527 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C199539241 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C2776154427 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C2776211767 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C48764862 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C555826173 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C70999106 @default.
• W1493151388 hasConceptScore W1493151388C94625758 @default.
• W1493151388 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1493151388 hasLocation W14931513881 @default.
• W1493151388 hasOpenAccess W1493151388 @default.
• W1493151388 hasPrimaryLocation W14931513881 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W2260592475 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W226932810 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W2540993975 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W291915712 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W2927882079 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W2996547090 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W303460174 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3048871135 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3121263639 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3121860245 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3122037907 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3122663159 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3122791120 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3123107193 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3125168321 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3128070994 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3135804428 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W327898531 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3121598325 @default.
• W1493151388 hasRelatedWork W3122974932 @default.
• W1493151388 hasVolume "35" @default.
• W1493151388 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1493151388 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1493151388 magId "1493151388" @default.
• W1493151388 workType "article" @default.