Sunday, November 8, 2009

"We have absolute immunity" comments

A few more thoughts on my post of We have absolute immunity

Could this be the end of our ability to seek redress for grievances? If we are prevented from punishing (or at least holding responsible) those who abuse their offices, what method is left to the citizens to prevent or punish criminal actions of those people who hold these offices?

The case involves prosecutors in Iowa who knowingly used false testimony against individuals in order to gain a conviction. These people have never been held accountable for their actions. Arguments were heard in the Supreme Court last Wednesday.

If the concept of immunity for public officials is upheld, what is to prevent a county attorney from fabricating a case against any citizen and scream "immunity" when caught?

In a word - nothing.


straightarrow said...

Look under Winchester v. Criminals .308 or .45ACP USA, or 30.06 of the Unintended Consequences Laws para. .357.

I think you will find them more effective than waiting for the miscreants and criminals in office to decide against themselves.

straightarrow said...

I would point out that there is no known immunity from those laws.

strandediniowa said...

I think it's too late to wait for them SA. What I'm trying to decide for myself is the legal justification for action. The Declaration clearly defined why the founders actions were justified and determined the legality of that action. But I enjoy your comments and I've used similar retorts myself.

"When peaceful revolution is impossible, armed conflict is inevitable."

We need to create the foundation so that even the simpleton liberal mind can see the right cause for action.