PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY PART TWO: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE

 Drawing Parallels: Sovereign Immunity Doctrine and Presidential Accountability

As the Supreme Court contemplates the contours of presidential immunity in the face of potentially unlawful actions, legal scholars and practitioners are turning to established legal doctrines for guidance. Among these, the federal doctrine of sovereign immunity stands out as a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, offering a historical and doctrinal framework that can shed light on the current debate surrounding presidential accountability.

Understanding Sovereign Immunity:

Sovereign immunity, rooted in English common law, shields the government from lawsuits unless it consents to be sued. This doctrine reflects the principle that the sovereign, or government, cannot be sued without its consent, thereby safeguarding the public fisc and ensuring governmental functioning. While sovereign immunity is a fundamental aspect of the separation of powers, it is not absolute and has evolved over time through legislative enactments and judicial interpretations.

Evolution of Sovereign Immunity in the United States:

In the United States, the doctrine of sovereign immunity has undergone significant transformation, shaped by constitutional principles and judicial precedent. Key developments include:

1. Eleventh Amendment: The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1795, embodies the principle of sovereign immunity by prohibiting federal courts from hearing lawsuits against states brought by citizens of other states or foreign countries. This amendment clarified and reinforced the immunity enjoyed by states in certain legal proceedings.
2. Waivers of Sovereign Immunity: Over the years, Congress has enacted legislation to waive sovereign immunity in specific contexts, allowing individuals to sue the federal government under certain conditions. One notable example is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for tort claims arising from the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees.
3. Exceptions and Limitations: Despite these waivers, sovereign immunity remains intact in many areas of law, with courts recognizing exceptions and limitations to the government's liability. For instance, sovereign immunity typically shields the government from liability for discretionary acts of its officials and for certain types of claims, such as those arising from intentional torts or military actions during wartime.

Applying Sovereign Immunity Principles to Presidential Accountability:

In light of the ongoing Supreme Court deliberations, the doctrine of sovereign immunity offers valuable insights into the issue of presidential immunity and accountability. Analogous to the protection afforded to the government as a whole, presidential immunity shields the Chief Executive from certain legal actions, ensuring the effective functioning of the executive branch and preserving the separation of powers.

1. Scope of Immunity: Similar to the sovereign immunity enjoyed by the government, presidential immunity is not absolute and may be subject to limitations and exceptions. While the President holds significant authority and discretion in executing the duties of the office, this authority is tempered by constitutional constraints and legal accountability.
2. Balancing Accountability and Executive Authority: Just as sovereign immunity balances the government's need for immunity with the interests of justice, presidential immunity must strike a delicate balance between accountability and executive authority. While accountability is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring transparency, excessive legal exposure could impede the President's ability to fulfill constitutional duties effectively.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the federal doctrine of sovereign immunity provides a compelling analogy for understanding the complexities of presidential immunity and accountability. By drawing parallels between the immunity enjoyed by the government as a whole and that afforded to the President, the Supreme Court can navigate the intricate legal terrain while upholding constitutional principles and ensuring the proper functioning of the executive branch. As the Court weighs the competing interests at stake, it must strive to strike a balance that preserves both accountability and executive prerogative in a democratic society governed by the rule of law.

 

PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY: PRECEDENT IN THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT

Applying the Federal Tort Claims Act to Presidential Immunity: Insights from Exemptions and the Discretionary Function Rule

As the Supreme Court grapples with the complexities of presidential immunity in the face of potentially unlawful actions, legal scholars and practitioners are turning to analogous legal frameworks for guidance. One such framework, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), offers a rich source of precedent and principles that can illuminate the current debate.

At the heart of the FTCA are two critical concepts: exemptions and the discretionary function rule. Understanding these components is essential for comprehending how the FTCA navigates the delicate balance between government accountability and the need for discretion in decision-making. By examining these principles within the context of the ongoing Supreme Court deliberations, we can gain valuable insights into the potential outcomes and implications of the case.

Exemptions under the FTCA:

The FTCA waives the federal government's sovereign immunity for torts committed by its employees in the scope of their employment, allowing individuals to sue the government for damages. However, this waiver is subject to several exemptions outlined in the statute. Notably, these exemptions shield the government from liability in certain circumstances, including:

1. Discretionary Function Exception: The discretionary function exception may be the most pertinent exemption concerning the current Supreme Court case. This exception precludes liability for claims "based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government." In essence, it protects government decision-makers from legal action when their actions involve the exercise of judgment or discretion.
2. Intentional Torts: The FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity for claims arising from intentional torts, such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, or defamation. This exemption reflects the principle that certain wrongful acts are outside the scope of official duties and, thus, not attributable to the government.
3. Combatant Activities: Claims arising out of combatant activities of the military during wartime are generally exempt from FTCA liability. This exemption recognizes the unique nature of military operations and the impracticality of subjecting battlefield decisions to civil litigation.

The Discretionary Function Rule:

The discretionary function rule is central to the FTCA's exemptions, distinguishing between governmental actions involving discretion and those not. The rule, established by judicial interpretation, aims to preserve the government's ability to make policy judgments and exercise discretion without fear of constant litigation. Critical aspects of the discretionary function rule include:

1. Policy Judgments: The rule immunizes government decisions that involve policy judgments and require balancing competing interests. Courts generally defer to executive branch decisions in national security, foreign affairs, and regulatory enforcement.
2. Operational Activities: Conversely, the discretionary function rule does not shield the government from liability for operational activities that involve no element of choice or judgment. For example, if a government employee fails to follow established procedures or regulations, resulting in harm, the discretionary function exception may not apply.

Application to Presidential Immunity:

In considering the extent of presidential immunity for potentially illegal actions, the Supreme Court can draw parallels to the principles embedded in the FTCA. Like government agencies and employees, the President wields considerable discretion in executing the duties of the office. However, this discretion is not unfettered, and the Court must weigh the competing interests of accountability and executive authority.

The discretionary function exception under the FTCA offers a helpful framework for analyzing the limits of presidential immunity. Suppose the actions involve core presidential functions or implicate national security or foreign policy matters. In that case, the Court may find that immunity applies, akin to the protection afforded by the discretionary function rule. Conversely, if the actions fall outside the scope of official duties or involve intentional wrongdoing, immunity may not attach, just as intentional torts are not shielded under the FTCA.

Moreover, the FTCA's emphasis on preserving governmental discretion underscores the importance of balancing accountability with the need for executive autonomy. While accountability is essential for maintaining the rule of law, excessive legal exposure could hinder the President's ability to fulfill constitutional obligations effectively.

In conclusion, the FTCA provides valuable insights into the nuances of governmental immunity and discretion, offering a framework that can inform the Supreme Court's deliberations on presidential immunity. By examining exemptions and the discretionary function rule within the context of the ongoing case, the Court can arrive at a nuanced understanding of the balance between accountability and executive prerogative in a democracy governed by the rule of law.

Top of Form

 

Ad

 

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7185792068328341504

WEBINAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

 

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/spriggs-law-group_answers-to-webinar-questions-activity-7181553105921024001-FPr0?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

 

KEEP AMERICA AMERICA

Trump is no Republican. He is not conservative. He leads a cult of Trumpism. 

We call for KEEP AMERICA  AMERICA. We need a robust federal government serving the less fortunate, a progressive income tax, an emphasis on civil and voting rights, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, transparency, and empathetic leadership. In short, we need to keep and grow America.

Conservatism in American politics is a political philosophy or ideology that emphasizes the preservation of traditional institutions, values, and social norms. It typically advocates for limited government intervention in the economy, individual freedom and responsibility, a strong national defense, and traditional cultural and moral values. Conservatism in the United States has its roots in various intellectual traditions, including classical liberalism, libertarianism, and traditionalism.

Here are some fundamental principles and characteristics of American conservatism:

1. Limited Government: Conservatives generally advocate for a smaller, less intrusive government. They believe in limiting the scope and power of government to interfere in individuals' lives and the economy.
2. Free Market Economics: Conservatives support free-market principles and believe in minimal government regulation of the economy. They often advocate for lower taxes, reduced government spending, and fewer business regulations.
3. Individual Liberty: Conservatives prioritize individual freedom and personal responsibility. They believe in protecting individual rights and liberties, including the right to free speech, gun ownership, and religious freedom.
4. Traditional Values: Conservatives typically uphold traditional cultural and moral values, such as respect for family, faith, and community. They often oppose social changes that they perceive as undermining these traditional values.
5. National Security: Conservatives prioritize a solid national defense and assertive foreign policy. They believe in maintaining a robust military presence and defending American interests abroad.
6. Judicial Restraint: Conservatives often advocate for judicial restraint and strict interpretation of the Constitution. They support appointing judges who adhere to originalist or textualist interpretations rather than engaging in judicial activism.

Donald Trump, while he identifies as a Republican and has been associated with the conservative movement, represents a departure from traditional conservatism in several vital ways. Here are some ways in which Trump's approach differs from mainstream conservatism:

1. Populism: Trump's political style is characterized by populism, which emphasizes appealing to the concerns of ordinary people against perceived elites. While populism can overlap with conservative themes, it also includes economic protectionism and nationalism that may not align with traditional conservative principles.
2. Trade and Economic Policy: Trump has taken a more protectionist stance on trade, advocating for tariffs and trade barriers to protect American industries. This approach diverges from the free-market principles typically associated with conservatism.
3. Executive Power: Trump has sometimes taken an expansive view of executive power, asserting authority in ways that some conservatives view as inconsistent with limited government principles. This includes his use of executive orders and attempts to circumvent Congress on specific policy issues.
4. Personal Conduct and Rhetoric: Trump's personal conduct and rhetoric have often been controversial and divisive, diverging from the more restrained and statesmanlike demeanor traditionally associated with conservative leaders.
5. Foreign Policy: While Trump has prioritized a robust national defense, his foreign policy approach has included isolationism and unpredictability that depart from the more interventionist and assertive foreign policy traditionally favored by many conservatives.

In summary, while there may be some overlap between Trump's agenda and specific conservative priorities, his presidency represented a departure from traditional conservatism in several significant ways, particularly regarding his style, policy preferences, and approach to governance.

Top of Form

  

ELECTORAL COLLEGE MUST GO . . . NOW

 

They were so short-sighted. They feared a problem of the times and were myopic. It just shows you that good brains can go stupid at times. It was a monumental mistake, and we are paying for it. Do not venerate our human forefathers for their genius. They don't deserve our approbation, nor do they deserve our condemnation. We all make mistakes.

The Electoral College, a relic of a bygone era, continues to haunt American democracy, perpetuating an unfair and undemocratic system where the minority rules over the majority. As the world evolves and democratic values become increasingly sacrosanct, it's high time we bid adieu to this archaic institution and embrace a system that truly reflects the people's will.

What is the Electoral College? The Electoral College is a system established by the framers of the United States Constitution as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and the election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. Under this system, each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes based on its representation in Congress, with 538 votes up for grabs. In most cases, the candidate who wins the popular vote in a state receives all of that state's electoral votes.

Why the Electoral College Must Go:

1. Minority Rule: The Electoral College enables a minority of voters to dictate the outcome of presidential elections. This is because a handful of swing states hold disproportionate sway over the electoral outcome, while the votes of millions of Americans in non-swing states are effectively marginalized. Essentially, we're allowing a minority of voters in battleground states to determine the entire nation's fate.
2. Disproportionate Influence: The Electoral College grants disproportionate influence to smaller, less populous states while diminishing voters' voices in larger states. This skewing of representation flies in the face of the principle of "one person, one vote" and distorts the democratic process by artificially amplifying the political power of specific regions.
3. Suppression of Voter Turnout: The Electoral College system can discourage voter turnout, particularly in states where one party dominates. Why bother voting in a "safe" state where the outcome is predetermined when your vote could make a difference in a swing state? This disenfranchisement of voters undermines the fundamental tenets of democracy and erodes trust in the electoral process.
4. Betrayal of Democratic Values: At its core, the Electoral College is antithetical to the democratic values of equality, fairness, and representation. By perpetuating a system where some votes count more than others based on geographic location, we betray the very principles upon which this nation was founded.

It's time to consign the Electoral College to the dustbin of history and usher in a new era of democracy in America. By embracing a system based on a direct, nationwide popular vote for the presidency, we can ensure that every vote counts equally and that the people's will prevails. Let us not be shackled by the vestiges of the past but rather forge ahead toward a future where true democracy reigns supreme. The time for change is now.

Top of Form

 

THE MORE YOU CONSTRAIN, THE MORE YOU LIBERATE

Galileo, Einstein, Martin Luther King, and Frank Schaeffer were constrained by their circumstances and found liberation to benefit mankind. That is not to extol the virtue of enslavement but rather to demonstrate that restriction may galvanize the creation of genius and the contribution of immense benefit to our species. The constraints were malevolent. But benevolent inhibitors may also produce the sword to fend off the routine and elucidate the extraordinary.

Give Einstein patent applications to critique, and he comes up with the theory of relativity. Galileo gushes gravity from quiet contemplation.

The corollary, ad astra per aspera, spans centuries. MLK endured the shackles of discrimination but found a voice for all time. Frank Schaeffer birthed literary beauty from religion's dankest dogma. In every corner, for every purpose, there is a pattern to follow, a mountain to climb. Majestic discoveries await the the common construction and repairman. 

The more you are constrained, the more liberated you may become. Let the mind-numbing daily duties wash over you to expose the breakthrough deep inside.

ANTHOLOGY OF ARTICLES ON AGEISM PART TWO

https://spriggslawgroup.blogspot.com/search?q=ageism+age+discrimination

  

SOCRATES TO REDUCE TENSIONS

We are close to being at each other's throats. Political or religious discourse, for example, if not nearly all, is shrouded in intransigence, resentment, name-calling, distrust, and outright animosity toward each other. We often opt out of conversations because we likely will argue and walk away, not having convinced the other person of our position, and prefer to return to the silo with the others of our persuasion. You are wrongheaded, so we avoid you at all costs and even wish you dead; we could be wrong, but since we will never change your mind, you are an interloper taking up our space and breathing our air.

We are correct, and you are wrong. That makes us wise and you stupid. One or two words in passing are enough to confirm our impression of you. The world would be better off without you.

We have trouble imagining how we could have a conversation, let alone a dialogue or, god forbid, a compromise upon which to agree. This condition most likely will continue and even get worse. We become isolated and tribal. We coalesce into our fellow traveling groups, disdaining all others. We even have thoughts of violence and civil war. Practice the art of active listening? That's a waste of time.

Can any technique or practice get us talking across the Great Divide? Yes, if we have the courage for it. Enter the Socratic method.

I force myself to articulate your position to your satisfaction. I quiz you until I understand your thinking and play my version of you back to you until you are satisfied I have your thinking down pat. Then you do that with me. The object is to correctly articulate the other person's position. Then what? We either walk away or critique your version of me and vice versa. Eventually, some accommodation or compromise may appear out of thin air. Or, we go home less inclined to kill each other.

 

A CALL TO REFORM SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE

WE CALL FOR INCREASED BENEFITS

In an era where the value of social safety nets is often debated, one thing remains crystal clear: Social Security and Medicare are not mere handouts or entitlements. They are pillars of societal support designed to ensure dignity, security, and stability for our aging population. It's time to dispel misconceptions and vigorously defend the expansion of these vital programs.

First and foremost, let's address the misnomer of entitlements. Social Security is not a giveaway; it's an annuity earned through years of hard work and contributions. Similarly, Medicare operates as an insurance plan, providing essential healthcare coverage for seniors who have paid into the system throughout their working lives. These programs are not gifts from the government; they are earned benefits Americans rightfully deserve.

Moreover, it's crucial to recognize the fundamental principle of insurance: risk pooling. Just like any insurance plan, Social Security and Medicare rely on the contributions of many to support the needs of the few. Some individuals may pay more into the system than they receive in benefits, while others may require more assistance than they contribute. This is the essence of solidarity and mutual support, ensuring no one is left behind in need.

Contrary to the rhetoric espoused by some, the push to cut or dismantle these programs is not only shortsighted but also morally bankrupt. Allowing our elderly population to struggle with inadequate support goes against the values of compassion and decency that define us as a society. It's not just about dollars and cents; it's about human dignity and respect for our elders.

Furthermore, let's look beyond our borders and learn from other civilized societies. Nations worldwide recognize the importance of caring for their older citizens, understanding that a society's greatness is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable members. It's time for the United States to follow suit and prioritize our seniors' well-being.

Now, more than ever, there is a concerted effort to undermine Social Security and Medicare under the guise of fiscal responsibility. But we must see through the thinly veiled attempts to strip away these crucial lifelines. Instead of retreating, we must advance. We must demand the preservation and expansion of these programs to meet the evolving needs of our aging population.

There is strength in our numbers, and together, we have the power to shape the future we want to see. Let us stand united in defense of Social Security and Medicare, advocating for increased benefits that reflect the dignity and worth of every American senior. It's not just a matter of policy; it's a matter of principle. And on this, there can be no compromise.