sovereign immunity? What does it mean in the context of government?
348829
It means that the government and its agents cannot be sued for acts done in the official course of their duties.
953118
regnum ~ government, authority, sovereignty\n\ndefende ~ defend, protect, preserve\n\nso the meaning could be rendered by various combinations of the above words but simplest is "defend the government"
246097
A STATE CANNOT HAVE ANY LEGITIMATE POWERS UNLESS THEY ARE GIVEN TO IT BY ITS CITIZENS\nIf government officials decide one day that no one should work on Sunday, even assuming the community generally supports their decision, where would they get the authority to use the police power of the state to enforce such a decree? Individual citizens don’t have right to compel their neighbours not to work, so they can’t delegate that right to their government. \nWhere, then, would the state get the authority? The answer is that it would come from itself; it would be self-generated. It would be similar to the divine right of ancient monarchies in which it was assumed that governments represent the power and the will of God – as interpreted by their earthly leaders, of course. \nIn more modern times, most governments don’t even pretend to have God as their authority, they just rely on swat teams and armies, and anyone who objects is eliminated. As that well-known collectivists, Mao Tse-Tung, phrased it: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
740808
Sorry.  Embassies are not "part of their respective" countries.  Neither are consulates.  Diplomatic properties are only protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which is an international treaty the privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions.  Read about it here:\nhttp://www.un.int/usa/host_dip.htm\n\nRegarding your second question, sovereign states are defined by their territorial limits, not the locations of their populations.
1060852
There is a doctrine called "assumption of the risk." If you have been told of the risk and you decide you know better that the authorities, and it turns out you made a stupid decision, why should the state be held liable?
1158107
Answerman is a bit off on the question here, since a monarchy is a form of government and might have very little to do with his statement.\n\nA government is essentially a body of rulers who make decisions for the society they govern.  Usually these decisions are ones that an individual of the society cannot or should not make by themselves because of their education, caste level, ect.  A good example of this is crimes against an individual.  If we allowed everybody to make the decisions on how to punish someone who committed a crime against them, the amount of homicides would probably be up.  In this example, the government makes the decision, creating an objective view to the crime.\nDepending on the type of government, the control can be from only one person (monarchy) to, theoretically, every member of the society (perfect democracy), and usually depends on the education and technological level of the society.  For example, a democracy would not have worked back in the 12th century, because most people were not and could not be educated up to a level to make a significant rational choice, which left the smaller educated class of king and higher subjects to rule.
527646
It is a form of government where you answer to the state, and the control over you is maintained bu themilitary, or secret police. Uou are under constant censorship, and the government  tightly controls  industry and finances.
114556
It is a very complicated question.  State do have sovereign immunity from suits claiming that they have violated federal law, unless the states have waived that immunity as they sometimes do.  This immunity shields them from paying damages for past acts, though not against injunctive relief to prevent the actions in the future.  This immunity does not apply to counties, cities or smaller political divisions in a state.\n\nBeginning about 10 years ago the Supreme Court started issuing a series of opinions greatly strengthening the immunity enjoyed by states, as part of the conservative federalist legal revolution.\n\nTHis is a complicated and changing area of US law, so the precise answer you are interested in may depend on the facts involved.
553852
The "government" is nothing more that you and me and all of our neighbours.  The "government" has no obligation to achieve any specific social outcomes. Voters may elect representatives whose objective it is to pursue social engineering, but that does mean that it is the government's obligation.\n\nPersonally, I think the government's primary obligation is the safety and security of the citizens and to create a climate and atmosphere in which liberty prevails so that each person can work towards achieving their own vision of the good life.
106845
Actually the Government of the nation is accused of something. In some countries where there is no democratic government then the ruler, king/queen, head of the nation is accused. They are accused of the decisions they took or an act(s) they have done. Nations are accused of Human Right Violations, spreading or harbouring terrorism, polluting environment etc.
635061
"Deference" is a visible show of respect for someone or something.  "Difference" is the quality of something being different from some other thing.  In a tyranny, someone, or small group of someones, make decisions for the whole.  In a monarchy, the royal person is the "owner" of the place and gets to make the decisions--unless it's a "Constitutional Monarchy", where the monarch is limited by law in certain areas.  In a democratic republic, like the U. S. A., the country belongs to the ordinary citizens.  The governing bodies are simply the "hired hands" of the owners--put in place to do necessary work while the owners go about their own lives.  Those governing bodies should make laws which protect the people they work for, as well as make honest business easy to conduct.  "Freedom" means a person has the capacity to choose how he/she wants to live, what work he/she wants to do, whose lead to follow in various facets of life, etc.  Democracy is a system which lets people choose--who should be in their governing bodies, what theory of government seems best--"democracy" (in the ideal) supports "freedom".
84703
Definition by US Gov't.:  "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."\n\nThis word is used a lot lately in very imprecise ways.  For example, Iraqis who blow up US troops are not terrorists, because the troops are not noncombatants.  To call any government or any person working for any government "terrorist" is a contradiction in terms.  This doesn't mean that they may not be behaving in inappropriate ways, just that people should find something else to call them.\n\nFor example, if it is discovered that the men who carried out the Trade Center attacks were actually working for the government of, say, Iran, (and I am not implying that they were) then they would no longer be called "terrorists."  They would be "enemy combatants."  This is a distinction which is particulary relevant in the current political climate.
837369
It's a republic (form of government) that is an island (geographic formation).  It has no special meaning, aside from being a country that is completely surrounded by water and has an elected government.
164255
He was referring to tribal sovereignty in response to a question about Indian tribal sovereignty posed at a gathering of minority journalists:\n    "Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a — you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." —President Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004 \n\n   I guess that should clear up any confusion about the term!
62690
we all exist in a state of freedom,\n\nsome governments come and restrict our freedoms,\n\nexample,  you already had the freedom to express your political dissent,\n\nin some countries in some times, governments would arrest and imprison those who disagreed with the soveriegn,\n\nso liberty is a concept that means a government which protects the citizens rights, natural rights, to freedom,
305841
I believe that it refers to either the absence of power (meaning, no one is in control) or it means that there are no politics going on.\n\nMy guess is that it refers to the absence of a controlling force or entity.  Right now, there is almost a political vacuum in Iraq.  No one is completely in control, which is why there is a civil war brewing.
938744
Technically, a country is simply a geographical territory.  When you say a country, you probably mean a state, which is an independent territory with a government, a population, and sovereignty over these.  Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself.  So to be a politically recognizable state, the state much meet the above requirements.