This should be the minimum viable result if there is a specific plan for 2029. I don’t care who wins in this respect. Congress, specifically, needs to back a bipartisan repeal of any EOs or judicial precedencies that prevent state or federal officials, law enforcement, or other groups from criminal or civil prosecution.

Whether you agree or disagree, subscribe to get future moderate debates and comment on posts to discuss. I’m here to listen.

I know this is a broad statement. There will of course be exceptions. But we’ve started too many conversations with the exceptions being the rule, especially for the president. His “absolute immunity” is only through judicial precedence, not through law. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically states anyone has immunity from legal liabilities except for:

* Congress being sued for their actions on the Congress floor, and

* the 11th Amendment that grants states “sovereign immunity” from being sued without their permission.

The first should stay. It’s in line with the First Amendment. The second… I still take issue with.

But beyond that, all other “immunity” and “qualified immunity” claims are judicially enforced, not legislatively.

Legislatively, there are a few examples of immunity passed as law:

* The Westfall Act that protects federal employees from common law torts. This is a good example of agreed-upon legislation preventing frivolous lawsuits. Completely fine but should be reviewed.

* The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) includes 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) which states that the government (and its officials) cannot be sued for actions that involve an element of “judgment or choice” based on public policy. This prevents people from suing over high-level policy decisions, even if those decisions cause harm. Are the provisions too broad? Perhaps something to review.

* Section 1983 of the The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is cited often as the basis of qualified immunity, based on the “common law immunities” present at the time not being intended to be dismissed. This again was not a literal interpretation but judicial.

* The PREP Act (2005) provides broad immunity to health officials, manufacturers, and “covered persons” involved in the administration of medical countermeasures during a public health emergency. It was applicable during the COVID-19 pandemic.

* The Volunteer Protection Act (1997) rovides immunity to volunteers from liability for harm caused by ordinary negligence while performing their duties.This includes government agency volunteering.

* Good Samaritan Laws exist in many states to protect those during emergency situations, which includes individuals who are off-duty LEOs and government employees.

This is often the peril of a common law state where jusicial interpretation is the quality assurance of law application. However, a civil law state presents its own challenges in administering laws where wording is unclear, leaving that unclarity to the peril of citizens, required to be later fixed by legislation to resolve disputes.

Nonetheless, American common law is shifted to new precedence with the introduction of new legislature, and case precedence cannot in most cases overrule the will of signed and ratified laws. It only creates new opportunities for interpretation.

In other words, we CAN start over, and in my opinion we should. So whoever we elect, that should be the fire we hold to their feet, the substance of the yard stick by which we measure their success. If falling short, we need to be willing to call for representation replacements who will.

We need to hold the government accountable ke, and if we cannot we have the mechanisms like the rest of the world to replace the government through new election. This continued immunity to the elite must end.

Thanks for reading The Moderate Punk! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Get full access to The Moderate Punk at themoderatepunk.substack.com/subscribe