Think about this concept for a Moment. Does it make any sense at all?

Would any private Individual or Corporation ever 'give its consent' to be sued?

Hopefully you see the idiocy of the concept of SovereignImmunity. If you don't stop reading now.

SovereignImmunity was derived from British common Law Doctrine based on the Idea that the King could do no Wrong.

This concept followed from the DivineRight concept meaning that God had Ordained the King to rule on His behalf.

Who do you think instituted such concepts? The King or that group (Oligarchy) acting as King.

So, in essence the concepts of SovereignImmunity and DivineRight were nothing more than self-serving Ideas by the Ruler or ruling class.

Thinking back to the OldTestament we see Israel desiring a King despite God's warning against putting a man (or men) over them rather than God Himself. 1Sa 8:7-9

Yes, there are Scriptures which speak to the anointing of the King which demands respect (1Ch 16:22.) But this in no way implies that the anointed can do no wrong. 1Sa 28:7 2Sa 12:13

So what is to happen when there is a Ruler or Rulers which violate the People's best interests, who ignore their will, who violate their Trust? To get some insight on this it is good to read the DeclarationOfIndependence.

In that document the founders enumerated the Reasons for throwing off the rulership of Great Britain from the colonies. It is important to note that the DeclarationOfIndependence was illegal in terms of the DivineRight concept and implied that SovereignImmunity did not carry any material weight when the InalienableRights of the People were violated.

The institution of Government is inspired by God. Individual Governments may or may not be inspired by God, dependent on the orientation of the Government toward or against God.

So, the concept of SovereignImmunity is bogus as it unilaterally prevents the injured from receiving Justice when the injury is caused by Government. It denies the Accountability of Government for its actions.