Can you sue the U.S. government?

[Bryan]

My I have a plan post.... Well Jeremy, there it is. This is what I've been looking into.

Bryan

[Bryan]

By the way... where has the ACLU been? Imagine they're butt fu**ing the guys from NAMBLA right now. Worthless sacks of shit! Always there for the perverts and nowhere to be found for the avg. guy who needs help.

Typical.

Bryan

[geoffvro]

Yes and No, The United States has sovereign immunity from lawsuits and may not be sued unless they waive their immunity or consent to the suit. For instance.. they may wave the protections granted to a federal employee.

Casino City's lawsuit was a constitutional challenge against the DOJ's ruling that advertisers would face criminal penalties if they broadcast, print or display advertisements for gambling Web sites.

Casino Operators could file their case in federal court, and challenge that the gambling portion of the Safe Harbor Act is unconstitutional. However, no monetary damages could be awarded unless the government waived its immunity protection

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by skits2

I'm not sure I agree with you. You don't have to actually prove that any existing constutional right was violated. You can just make up an interpretation of one in some amendment or other and get the ACLU to help you. I recommend 1st or 4th because you can sweak just about anything into those

I probably should have clarified, but I was only speaking to the main portion of the act that addresses the transfers of funds, I was not referring to the aspect regarding the removal of links. Clearly that has potential first amendment implications and will be challenged. But as for the restrictions on transfers, I do not see how any first amendment claims would apply. There are some cases where how one choses to spend money is a form of speech and should be protected, but that is generally limited to political contributions (and has not always held up anyway). As for 4th amendement? maybe, but I certainly don't see anything to hang your hat on.....

[skits2]

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

I probably should have clarified, but I was only speaking to the main portion of the act that addresses the transfers of funds, I was not referring to the aspect regarding the removal of links. Clearly that has potential first amendment implications and will be challenged. But as for the restrictions on transfers, I do not see how any first amendment claims would apply. There are some cases where how one choses to spend money is a form of speech and should be protected, but that is generally limited to political contributions (and has not always held up anyway). As for 4th amendement? maybe, but I certainly don't see anything to hang your hat on.....

Sorry about that, my post was somewhat tongue in cheek, but rereading my post that's not as clear as I had intended. I have to agree that any lawsuit would be a tough road to travel