Status: Contingent majority-support collection is active.

This case is collecting declarations and support now so the constitutional theory, factual record, and public demand can be assembled for the courts. It is not presented as an already activated majority action unless the verified-majority benchmark is met.

Contingent Ninth Amendment and accountability challenge

Revocation of the Federal Tort Claims Act

This page sets out a constitutional theory in uncompromising terms: the sovereign people should not need the federal government's consent to seek judicial accountability from the federal government. The campaign is collecting declarations now, but it states openly that the mass demand activates only if verified support exceeds one-half of the adult population of the United States.

Activation rule

More than one-half of U.S. adults

Activation requires support exceeding one-half of the U.S. adult population after a verification workflow is established.

Current posture

Record building and verification preparation

Support is being assembled now without claiming that the majority threshold has already been met.

Judicial posture

Respectfully directed to the courts

The argument asks the courts to hear the constitutional question, not to be bypassed or disregarded.

Join the declaration record Read how this would work

Introduction

This is not presented as an ordinary tort suit. It is presented as a constitutional accountability theory aimed at a specific barrier: the idea that the federal government may decide for itself when the people may sue it. On this view, that premise is backwards. The people are the source of public power. Courts exist within a constitutional system established by the people. A statute cannot convert that source relationship into a requirement that the sovereign obtain permission from its own agent.

The theory therefore challenges the Federal Tort Claims Act not because every line of it is void in every context, but because its consent requirement, exceptions, and gatekeeping function are argued to be nonbinding when invoked against the sovereign people acting collectively to address systemic public harm.

Current operating rule

This case is collecting support now, but it does not claim to be an activated majority action until the platform can verify support exceeding one-half of the U.S. adult population.

Only identity-verified U.S. adults can count toward the majority benchmark. Current submissions preserve support and testimony now, but do not count toward activation until the verification workflow is in place.
The page preserves legal theory, public support, and declarations before activation.
The site is not claiming that a verified majority or court ruling already exists.

How This Would Work

Build a national declaration record

The first stage is collection. Supporters submit declarations, identify themselves as part of the U.S. adult population, and explain why the federal government cannot be allowed to hide behind sovereign-immunity doctrine when the sovereign people themselves are demanding accountability.

Verify that support exceeds one-half of the adult population

This theory is not framed as a symbolic petition. It is framed as a collective sovereign demand. For that reason, the campaign states openly that activation requires verified support from more than half of the adult population of the United States. Until that benchmark is met, submissions preserve the record and the constitutional theory, but do not claim to speak as an activated majority.

Present the challenge to the courts with a complete constitutional record

Once the majority benchmark is met, the case theory asks an Article III court to decide whether the Federal Tort Claims Act can constitutionally require the sovereign people to obtain their own government's permission before seeking judicial accountability for systemic harm.

Seek declaratory and injunctive relief on the merits

The requested relief is not a plea for grace. It is a demand for adjudication: a declaration that the FTCA's consent requirement and related limitations cannot be applied to a verified-majority action by the sovereign people, and an injunction preventing those barriers from being used to shut the courthouse door before the merits are heard.

Why the majority threshold is central

The theory depends on demonstrating that the claim is not a factional grievance but a sovereign demand backed by more than half of the adult population.
A verified-majority threshold is meant to show that the plaintiffs are not merely many individuals aggregated together, but the governing public speaking in concert.
The threshold also prevents overclaiming. Until the majority benchmark is met, the site preserves declarations and legal theory without pretending that activation has already happened.

Respect for the courts

This campaign does not treat the courts as an enemy institution to be brushed aside. It treats the courts as the forum in which a constitutional contradiction should be confronted. The request is direct: hear the claim, test it, and decide whether the government may place a consent gate between the sovereign people and judicial accountability.

Respect for the courts, in this framework, means bringing the strongest record possible, speaking plainly about the constitutional theory, and asking the judiciary to perform its duty rather than allowing threshold doctrines to extinguish the question before the merits are reached.

Complaint Theory in Strong Form

The people precede the government

The core argument is simple and severe. The federal government is the agent. The people are the principal. A principal does not need the agent's consent to demand an accounting from the agent. The theory therefore treats sovereign immunity, in this setting, as constitutionally inverted.

The FTCA is challenged as a barrier, not as a gift

The Federal Tort Claims Act is ordinarily described as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. This page reframes that posture. It argues that when the sovereign people act collectively, the statute cannot operate as a permission slip through which the government decides whether the people may approach their own courts.

The Ninth Amendment is the textual anchor

The retained-rights language of the Ninth Amendment is presented here as the constitutional anchor for a collective right of judicial accountability: the right of the people, acting together, to seek a remedy when systemic harms cannot be corrected through ordinary political channels alone.

Why the FTCA is the target of this challenge

The Federal Tort Claims Act is ordinarily presented as the statute that allows people to sue the United States in limited circumstances. This page challenges that framing. It argues that the statute operates as a gate through which the government decides when accountability is allowed, what harms count, and which categories of conduct are immunized from judicial review.

On this theory, the problem becomes most severe when the injury is systemic rather than individualized. If the government may insist that every public wrong be broken into isolated personal torts, while reserving broad exceptions for discretionary and policy-level conduct, then the largest public injuries become the least reachable in court. That is the constitutional inversion this campaign is designed to confront.

Requested relief

A declaration that the FTCA consent requirement and related exceptions cannot constitutionally bar a verified-majority action by the sovereign people seeking accountability for systemic public harm.
An injunction preventing the United States from invoking sovereign immunity, discretionary-function immunity, or similar FTCA limitations as threshold barriers against that collective constitutional claim.
An order allowing the action to proceed to the evidentiary merits so the public record of systemic capture, public injury, and institutional self-protection can be tested in court.
Any additional equitable relief the court determines is necessary to restore lawful accountability between the people and the government created to serve them.

Join the declaration record

If you support the proposition that the sovereign people should not need government consent to seek judicial accountability for systemic harm, join this declaration record. Your submission is preserved now as part of a contingent constitutional record while the verification standard for a majority-supported action is being built.

The site is explicit about the threshold: more than half of the adult population must be verified before this campaign claims activation as a mass demand. Until then, the work is to document support, assemble testimony, and prepare the strongest constitutional record possible for the courts.

Open the FTCA declaration