Sovereign Immunity is Fake Law, declared by Robed Kings.

"Sovereign Immunity" is a fake legal doctrine which never received the consent of the governed. It violates the Natural Law.

Despite the constitution having never been amended to include sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court added this principle to our legal system by declaration and fiat. It even goes so far as to constrain congress's enumerated powers under a fictional doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Supposedly, the 11th amendment introduces the concept of sovereign immunity. But this is a concept neither the text nor the history of the 11th amendment support. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has proven itself willing to lie in its opinion to announce new rules of law which have no support in the historical record or amendments themselves.

First, a quick examination of the text of the 11th Amendment leaves no room for sovereign immunity. Rather, the 11th amendment, by its text, strips the federal government of diversity jurisdiction against states. But nothing in the 11th Amendment suggests it was intended to be read verbatim, and not as a negation of the previous grant of diversity jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court went far further than a literal reading of the 11th Amendment. Not only did it go further than the rightful understanding of the text, but it even added terms which are not meaningful.

The text of the 11th amendment clearly says "by a citizen of the same state". If the People through their elected representatives wished to adopt a complete bar against suit, they would not have included this qualifying language. What the Supreme Court did in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) was to write law that was not ratified.

Under this case, the Supreme Court proported to recognize some doctrine of sovereign immunity that existed prior to the ratification of the constitution. But the constitution's original text clearly and unambiguously disposed of the concept of sovereign immunity entirely.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—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.

The 11th amendment reads:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Properly understood, this amendment modified the judicial power of the united states to be as follows (with inline changes):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—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 of a State and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

As actually amended (changes incorporated):

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; —between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and the Citizens of a State and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Notice how there is no mention of sovereign immunity.

We can observe two things.

First if the language of the 11th amendment was intended to bar lawsuits "by Citizens of the same State", why would it have been written as "by Citizens of another State"?

It was already understood that there were two situations where the United States courts could claim jurisdction:

1. Cases involving the laws of the United States, against any party
2. Cases involving the law of a State, where the citizen is a citizen of another state.

If the writers of the amendment meant to constrain the power of the government to issue rulings based upon the so called federal question jurisdiction:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

Then why would the language "by Citizens of the same State" have been included in the 11th Amendment?

The Supreme Court did correctly point out that there was outrage over the federal courts having jurisdiction over states. But there is a difference between what some representatives wanted and the compromise constitutional amendment that was voted in successfully and actually passed.

I have no doubt in my mind that many would have, if they had the opportunity, implemented an amendment which restored sovereign immunity to the states. But that is not the amendment that the votes of the representatives were able to secure with a majority.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court took its own political leanings and incorporated the losing proposal, one which was not adopted by the congress, one which fully adopted a policy which is not present in the constitution. It declared a law by fiat. No representative voted it in, no policy voted it in. The supreme court decided that its authority to decide cases and set precedent goes beyond clarifying written law, and that it has the authority to replace the written law.

The judiciary has only the authority to interpret and apply the law. Nothing in the constitution gives the judiciary the right to replace it, least of all the constitution. This act, one which the Supreme Court declares its own will above that of the People was, is, and has always been, treason. May we see the end of Robed Kings in my lifetime.