Posted on 06/05/2010 8:06:31 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
Having never been a lawyer or even playing one on television may place me at a disadvantage. But, I do read the English language quite well. From everything I have seen in print, the American people have every right to take the entire United States Government into court.
According to legal definition, every elected federal government official is a "Fiduciary" of the American people. The fiduciary is "someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter of circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence."
Using this definition, the President of the United States, the Vice President and all members of Congress have a fiduciary duty to every citizen of the United States. That duty demands the highest standard of care at either equity or law. Protecting the United States borders against all illegal entry would fall well within that scope of responsibility.
It can be considered a breach of fiduciary responsibility when actions are not taken on behalf of those placed in positions of trust. Since all elected federal officials have sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and it is a constitutional duty to defend the borders of the country. That defense of the border and the laws of immigration become a fiduciary responsibility of all elected federal officials. The daily violations of those borders and the millions of illegal aliens now in the United States are clear proof that all of these officials have failed in that duty.
To bring suit against these government officials, citizens must understand that the federal government, like another entity that causes harm to innocent people can be charged with violations of law that damage citizens. There may be a question as to the nature of such charges, be they criminal or civil. A case could be argued on behalf of either.
It could also be argued that failure to enforce secure borders leads to property damage, the killing of livestock, theft, and as we now see in Arizona, even murder. That would mean those officials who through their inaction or inattention have brought about these violations of our borders have even participated or have been party to criminal acts.
If we were to look at the failure to secure our borders from a civil framework, all costs brought about by individual citizens seeking to protect themselves and their property, all property losses, all business losses, etc. could be claimed and sought as damages from those officials who failed in their fiduciary responsibility.
The federal government has, by its own politically motivated actions and inactions placed itself in opposition to the American people. Maybe it is time that we all hold them accountable for their conduct and their failure to respond to the will of the people.
Sorry, but the concept is called “sovereign immunity.” Google it. You wouldn’t even get to first base.
sounds great.... nice fantasy
but this will go the same way as trying to get article 2 of the Constitution upheld... the judges would rule you “have standing” or some other load of bs (so much for your day in court)
when the ones ruling are politically connected to the defense, you have zer0 chance of succeeding.
sounds like fun anyway
The long-established “political question” doctrine prohibits such sweeping claims because they are political issues.
Another concept is applicable here, that of selective enforcement. Selectively enforcing a law or group of laws renders the law(s) invalid. In the absence of laws, all we have is anarchy. Then it is everyone for themself.
The most selectively enforced laws are those relating to the IRS. There are many more tax cheats than are prosecuted(or can be hired by this amateur hour government). Yet the rest of the populace is cowed into semi-obedience.
If we are going to get anywhere, it will NOT be by sueing the “government”, a faceless enemy. Rather, mechanic’s liens can be filed and stop all spending. Need legal help here, but I recall a CO man did it in the 1970’s and brought the government to a screeching halt until it was settled in court.
Then, personal suits against Congresscritters to tie them up in court and depositions need to be filed. A pro forma proceeding can be constructed and filed individually all over the country. Use their own tactics against them.
“Maybe it is time that we all hold them accountable for their conduct and their failure to respond to the will of the people.”
I believe we will get to do that in November.
Because, among other reasons, the court is also government. The idea of separation of powers is something of a myth, when they’re all playing on the same team.
but I recall a CO man did it in the 1970’s and brought the government to a screeching halt until it was settled in court.
Can you find any reference to this???
You can sue the government and it is called the US Constitution’s balance of powers. What is immune is the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness as declared, but the government cannot force its cooperation if the chain of command fails in its job, lest it becomes like Nazi Germany’s murders unquestionable.
“sovereign immunity”
So, all Britain had to do is declare “sovereign immunity?”
Maybe the Title should read “Why don’t we take down the government and start over?”
Rev II is coming.
First, as noted, they’ve declared themselves immune to lawsuit, unless gross negligence or malfeasance can be demonstrated. So if you want to sue the government, the first thing you’re going to do is argue with the government to get permission to sue it.
This is not without justification. As much as you and I would like to sue the government to enforce the second amendment, for example, Sarah Brady and her ilk would also like to sue the government for failing to enforce her (idiotic) notion of what the second amendment means.
The courts will say that border enforcement, for example, is an issue for the legislative branch to decide and the people are able to enforce their views in elections.
As to selective enforcement, the courts will answer that if the law is valid, and it was not properly enforced, the answer is to enforce it properly. That means court orders for more IRS auditors, etc. They will return to the principle that if the law is bad, the people must use the ballot to elect legislators who will correct it.
Even if you could sue the government you’d have to pay the lawyers on both sides and isn’t the idea to reduce taxes and wasteful government expenditures? Such a suit could be classified right alongside shooting yourself in the foot.
Were it not for the fact the potential defendant is chock-full of lawyers and judges bent on empowering themselves, the notion might fly.
Maybe my memory fails me, or am got my facts mixed up. I did find this article, somewhat legalese, that talks about various ways to sue federal entities.
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/bivens.htm
Of particular interest is this:
“When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their “individual” capacity not their official capacity. The theory appears to be that when federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires and lose the shield of sovereign immunity. Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.