damage award caps for municipality liability. constitutional or not?

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
We supposedly have the constitutional right to petition the gov for redress of grievances which consists of suing the government when they violate our rights. Those damage awards can reach pretty phenomenal numbers at times, depending upon the seriousness of the violation. Apparently there's a suburb of St. Louis MO that has a statutory limit of 375,000 dollars for a damage award, no matter the violation and I'm aware of a Georgia state law that also limits damage awards to around 200k.

This sounds completely unconstitutional as it seems to give the government power to determine what your rights or lives are worth.

agree or not?
 
It’s not an constitutional issue. The federal and state governments have immunity from suit, except where it is provided by statute, or waived by consent. See, e.g., the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).
 
Nemo said:
It’s not an constitutional issue. The federal and state governments have immunity from suit, except where it is provided by statute, or waived by consent. See, e.g., the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).
Click to expand...

Its impossable for the Federal Tort Claims Act to be unconstitutional?
 
Nemo said:
It’s not an constitutional issue. The federal and state governments have immunity from suit, except where it is provided by statute, or waived by consent. See, e.g., the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b).
Click to expand...
if the US and state constitutions provide for redress of grievances, how is it not a constitutional issue?
 
It is not a constitutional issue because the government has sovereign immunity. Except for the grant of original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has the power to curtail federal jurisdiction subject to separation of powers limitations. See 28 U.S. C § 2671 et seq.; Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. 307 (1810) and Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868); cf. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) [NB: Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Congress removed the court’s jurisdiction over military tribunals by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006).]

What the law giveth, the law can taketh away - blessed be the sovereign power of the law.
 
Nemo said:
It is not a constitutional issue because the government has sovereign immunity. Except for the grant of original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has the power to curtail federal jurisdiction subject to separation of powers limitations. See 28 U.S. C § 2671 et seq.; Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. 307 (1810) and Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868); cf. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) [NB: Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Congress removed the court’s jurisdiction over military tribunals by enacting the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006).]

What the law giveth, the law can taketh away - blessed be the sovereign power of the law.
Click to expand...
this answer makes no sense. break it down some more.
 
The government is not amenable to suit pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This means that a citizen does not have the right to sue the government except as provided by law, or consent of the government by waiver of such immunity. The allowance a claim against the government is subject to the power of the state limit such actions, including a cap on damages.
 
Nemo said:
The government is not amenable to suit pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This means that a citizen does not have the right to sue the government except as provided by law, or consent of the government by waiver of such immunity. The allowance a claim against the government is subject to the power of the state limit such actions, including a cap on damages.
Click to expand...
so you're saying that nobody can sue the government unless the law specifically says you can?
 
That's right. Your right to sue, as with all rights, exists by law. Otherwise, the government would have to consent by waiver of sovereign immunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top