We know what time it is.

We already have "The Oathkeepers", whose members publicly swear they will not comply with an unconstitutional order. The one basic and unifying idea in the minds of every police officer, Fderal Agent, Soldier, and elected official, is simply that at the end of the day they want to go home.

Likely most of "the enforcers" would leave their positions, abandon their orders, or simply go A.W.O.L. if such an order were given. Consider that both Ruby Ridge and the Davidian compound disasters involved huge armed forces massed against quite specific targets. However, over half of american families own and enjoy the lawful use of their firearms, and many have more than a single place of abode.

Most would not surrender their firearms. Immediate reduction in the size of government.

Just my perspective. Thank you for taking the time to consider.

~Donald P McGaffey, Citizen of the United States of America

Perhaps its time we start figuring out how to let the agents of the Federal government know that their willfully violation of the Constitution in executing unconstitutional powers, is in fact a criminal act. That they are NOT above the law and that they can and will be prosecuted for violating the law.

In this particular situation given the clear conflict of interest Federal courts must be banned from presiding over federal usurpation. This takes us back to the Ruby Ridge case where Idaho tried to put the Federal sniper on trial for murder, and the case got bumped up to Federal court where it was dismissed over the clam of sovereign immunity.

The assertion of “sovereign immunity” is the assertion that a Government being the source of law can do no wrong, and could not be tried in its own court.

On face value the assertion of “sovereign immunity” may seem to be fundamentally incompatible with any kind of Constitutional government, if we assume that government is to be defined as the people working under its powers (the officers and employees).

If however we are to assume that the government is in fact a republic of laws not men, then it is in fact true that the law cannot violate itself, as it is merely a law. Nevertheless, the men and women who work under that law CAN and do violate the same law.
This of course makes the idea of “sovereign immunity” a bit academic except that the other point about “sovereign immunity” is true, it cannot be tried in its own courts.

This brings us to the 11th amendment: “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.”

You will note that in this amendment, it excludes the Federal courts from being used as a vehicle to sue any State by any Citizens or Subjects not of the same state.

While the court has interpreted this reading as to also include a probation from being used by Citizens of the same state to sue their own state, I would assert that this is not in the wording. An indeed a useful omission if we are to assume that State Governments are also a republican form of government, with the same problems with regard to “sovereign immunity”. The propose of the 11 Amendment being to protect States from outsiders attacking their laws, not from those subject to and empowering those laws.

Am I getting a remotely plausible interpretation here?

But yes, state governments certainly need to take action and nullify!

State governments: nullify this whole 2,000-page can of expensive worms. You will be doing your citizens a favor.