Suing the Government...

[X_805]

Is it possible to sue the government for them taking away your money for unconstitutional programs?

Just curious...

[fsk]

It isn't practical.

Look at it this way: There are so many lawyers looking for a buck. If there was money to be made doing it, someone would have done it already.

[foofighter20x]

It is, but there's a catch.

To bring a case to court, one must prove legal standing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law))--that is, one must show sufficient evidence that the law or action in question actually injures you in some way.

Edit: Actually, the article later states the Supreme Court says taxpayer standing--i.e. injury via taxes--isn't sufficient. What BS! :mad: Class Action suit, anyone?!

[X_805]

Class Action suit, anyone?!

Interesting idea.

Another thought I've had just recently is if the government could be broken up according to their own laws against monopolies, since government is essentially a monopoly on a lot of things... Not that I would really want the government to be split up, but it's an odd concept.

[foofighter20x]

Interesting idea.

Another thought I've had just recently is if the government could be broken up according to their own laws against monopolies, since government is essentially a monopoly on a lot of things... Not that I would really want the government to be split up, but it's an odd concept.

They have already thought of that too! :mad:

Apparently the federal government has declared itself immune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#In_the_United_States). WTF? Where did they get the power to declare this? This isn't in the Constitution... I've always been taught that the bedrock of American jurisprudence is that the people are sovereign. :(

[beermotor]

You cannot do this. The court has held that you have no interest in where your money is spent, sorry. I can dig up the caselaw, if you're interested. Basically, your individual interest in proper application of the laws is generic. In effect, I guess what they want is a class action lawsuit involving the entire population.

The point is, the court feels like this is a political process problem, not a legal problem.

Governments have always been immune from suit - you could never sue the king. At least in this country you can sue 'em for their own negligence if they run over you or something. But the political process is where you have to affect them.

[angelatc]

I found it interesting that COngress can't sue the President, either. Apparently Congress tried to turn to the courts against Clinton when he tried a line item veto, and the court ruled they didn't have standing. It ended up that Rudy sued on behalf of NYC and won.

[Douglass Bartley]

About ten years ago, I filed Suzanne Bartley v. United States, a class action tax refund suit.

The general basis for the claim was that the government, with its various taxing statutes and regulations, has far exceeded its lawful taxing authority under ART. 1, §8, of the constitution, the provision that lists almost all the purposes for which the government may lay and collect taxes, and strictly limits the government's taxing power to raising taxes to carry out those enumerated functions and those alone. The government, the suit claimed, had no general power of taxation.

Unlike the usual "tax protest" case, the Suzanne Bartley suit accepted the validity of the 16th Amendment, which authorized the federal income tax; but argued that taxes for purposes not authorized by the constitution are unconstitutional and must be refunded.

The approximate amount then in controversy, for FY 1991-93, is staggering: overcollections approached 70% of all revenue collected for each of those years, and amounted to a grand total of about $16,000 for Mrs. Bartley and $2.4 trillion for the class as a whole. (Approximately 70% of all federal expenditures go for social welfare and other purposes beyond congress's powers.)

The suit was dismissed for lack of standing and the dismissal was upheld by the 7th Circuit. If anyone should happen to read the decision of the 7th Circuit—it’s online—please understand the 3-judge court ignored the arguments we made. That seems to be the usual tactic when judges don’t want to deal with the issues.

[beermotor]

That's because the Supremes have basically given Congress this power; you can thank FDR and the Fed-induced Great Depression for this garbage.

[Douglass Bartley]

Beermoter: You are right. The seminal case was United States v. Butler. Although the court ruled against FDR on the specifics, it deconstructed the general welfare clause into a broad, almost infinite congressional power. If you want to see more on this, see http://kissofjudice.townhall.com/g/bebe6a75-971a-49c4-81d7-96f170ad3b67.

Thank you for writing.

[RonPaul4President]

That seems to be the usual tactic when judges don’t want to deal with the issues.


...unconstitutional programs?

Then they need to be impeached and disgraced. That is obstruction of justice and it is against the laws of this country. In fact all the laws that are not being enforced such as immigration laws are themselves grounds for impeachement. All 3 branches of government have failed the people. This country runs on the "good ol' boys" mentality where people are hired for who they know and not what they know. That is the reason we see such incompetence before us. Taxpayers fork over billions of dollars to inept departments like FEMA. These institutions need to be dissolved and the money put into paying off our national debt.