Class action lawsuits levied against Bush and Congress could be useful. Should be simple to prove criminal negligence and willful endangerment during a time of war. Publicity from the lawsuits could legitimize emotional opposition and force its entry into the controlled mainstream debate = game over.
The President, Vice President and all employees of the Executive Branch who work in close cooperation with either have absolute immunity from all civil claims against them for actions done while in office. This includes all civil claims for actions outside the scope of their respective authority/employment. The theory is that the the Chief Executive and staff should not be burdened by any outside influences while they are conducting the business of the nation. So, what you suggest here is a legal impossibility.
I left Eastern Europe in 1987. 2 years later I saw the whole Eastern European non-sense to crumble down, something I never thought I would see. Now I wonder if I am gonna see it again in this country. I don't know whether I am being swayed by a moment or if it's just a wishful thinking but in 20 years in USA I don't think I felt so much discontent among Americans. Personally, seeing Latinos (illegal!!) marching the streets with Mexican flags demanding (whatever) scares shit out of me, at the same time, I am absolutely sure nothing is gonna change without serious civil disobedience.
How do we make it possible? What about Congress? Are they immune from civil prosecution while serving in office, too? Legalities aside, I don't believe lawsuits are critical to forcing the issue. Outraged citizens need only to find their voice and resist slanderous accusations of 'racist' against their character. Of course, most will just stay quiet in the corner and let Congress and Bush roll over them. How comforting.
As usual they are above the law. They would likely hide underneath: Speech Or Debate Clause, Art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1 ...of the constitution. Rules don't apply to us all you know. I am waiting any day now to hear the proposal for the new, "Immigrant Bill Of Rights." This should clear up all the issues for legal Americans as to our duties and responsibilities to foreign applicants.
Your interpretation is incorrect as a matter of law. The laws concerning civil immunity from litigation of Federal government officials and employees are pretty much case by case; they are legally reasonable, but they are not necessarily fair or obvious. Members of Congress are only protected from suit for statements which injure another person, if the statements are made while the Congressperson is actually speaking on the floor of the House or Senate. If a Congressperson walks outside onto the steps of the Capitol Building, and states the same things, and those statements are civilly actionable, then the Congressperson is amenable to suit. Likewise, a Congressperson can be charged with any crime during a session of Congress, but he/she cannot be arrested until the session is over, except for a felony or for breach of peace misdemeanor. And, a Congressperson can be sued civilly just like any other person for anything that he/she does while in office, whether or not within the scope of official duties/authority. Only the President, VP, and members of their close staff are totally immune from civil action, and only the President and VP are immune from criminal prosecution until removal by impeachment. Judges, Federal Prosecutors and their staff, have civil immunity while acting within the scope of authority, as do appointed Agency and Department heads has (such as Secretary of State, Treasury, SEC head, etc.). All other lower level federal employees have immunity from civil suit for policy related activities, but not for ministerial acts. This means, for example, that you can sue the government for injuries caused by its negligent management of an ammo dump, if there's an explosion that destroys your home, but not for the policy decision to locate ammunition near your home.
No problem with your explanation, I was just commenting on where they might try to hide. In today's climate of no one taking responsibility for actions, they would look for any available out I'm sure. Thanks for the breakdown though. I wish more posts would contain actual "real" citings verses emotional wishes.
kent, Are you saying the President is totally immune from any civil suit? How did that woman from Arkansas sue Clinton?
President is totally immune if the transaction or occurrence on which the suit is based took place during his term of office. Clinton was sued for acts which took place prior to becoming the Pres.
bingo. what is especially ironic about clinton is that he was sued pursuant to the very statutes that he (and hillary) took a huge part in supporting, when they were still hypothetical - quid pro quo and hostile workplace sex harassment laws. it's so classic fwiw, i was AGAINST clinton being sued. but it is ironic