i think its a tricky situation. there is an extreme libertarian argument that individual officers of the US government should be held personally liable for any violation of the constitution. however, this would make it potentially difficult for the government to enforce _any_ law or carry out the duties of government because of the risk that some court could find the law or their duty violates the constitution. of course this is very appealing for libertarians but maybe not for non-libertarians. for example in the case of the Biden loan forgiveness program should every US government person involved in that be prosecuted for criminal embezzlement?
> US government should be held personally liable for any violation of the constitution
If this isn't the case, then why bother even having a constitution if the government officials can violate at any time without consequences.
> should every US government person involved in that be prosecuted for criminal embezzlement
This is odd question as it presumes that Biden broke the law in this example, but if that was in fact the case, then yes those involved in breaking the law should be held accountable to extent proportionate to their involvement. Again, what's the point in having laws if they can so easily be ignored.
The problem is its often not clear that the government is violating the constitution until after a court has ruled that they have violated it. People can have reasonable beliefs that what they are doing is constitutional and then a court rules differently and suddenly they have a civil liability or potential criminal liability.
There are absolutely situations were there can be constitutional ambiguity and in those cases, that can be taken into account by courts when assessing liability. Like if it was reasonable for a person in that position to assume they were acting in accordance with the law, then the court can find they aren't liable.
The problem is that pre-assigning blanket immunity means that government officials can (and do) knowingly violate people's rights because there is no penalty for doing so.
I've always felt a person empowered to enforce the law (especially someone who's empowered to use physical force), should be held MORE stringently to the law, not less.
7 comments
[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 39.5 ms ] threadThis Time article discuses how police states can persist beyond a leader.
https://time.com/6281663/russia-vladimir-putin-defectors/
If this isn't the case, then why bother even having a constitution if the government officials can violate at any time without consequences.
> should every US government person involved in that be prosecuted for criminal embezzlement
This is odd question as it presumes that Biden broke the law in this example, but if that was in fact the case, then yes those involved in breaking the law should be held accountable to extent proportionate to their involvement. Again, what's the point in having laws if they can so easily be ignored.
The problem is that pre-assigning blanket immunity means that government officials can (and do) knowingly violate people's rights because there is no penalty for doing so.
Otherwise, it's just begging for abuse.
Not just constitutional rules, but all rules.