• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NJ's new Governer

Mr Person said:
It's still the same answer.

Anyway, if it was treason, then it would be handled by a prosecutor in a criminal court (or in legislative impeachment proceedings, if NJ has any).
Click to expand...

Isn't there a clause I remember from civics class, that you need the guvmint's permission to sue them?
 
Rexedgar said:
Isn't there a clause I remember from civics class, that you need the guvmint's permission to sue them?
Click to expand...

Yes but it's complicated, and is also different than the doctrine of "standing". Basically, there are whole lot of headache-inducing legal doctrines in play at once when you try to sue some actor in government or government itself.

It sounds like you are referring to "Sovereign Immunity", you cannot sue The United States unless congress authorizes it ("consent to sue"). I may actually have to dig up my old "federal courts/federalism/separation of powers" casebook. In short, the answer is "it depends" as it just about always the case in law. I hesitate to say much because I haven't had to know any of this stuff for quite some time and it is a pretty complex subject.

This is an example of consent to sue, aka, waiver of sovereign immunity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

I suppose that doesn't explain very much either, though.

The two biggest questions are: (1) whom or what exactly are you suing, and (2) what are you suing for? Different rules would apply to suing an on-duty police officer for something he did to you (in his official capacity), suing the municipality that employed him, suing him for something he did to you off-duty at a bar, suing a government agency for taking a particular action, or suing a government agency for how it went about in making a new rule, a federal contractor suing the federal government for damages, and whatever other number of imaginable situations there are.

There are some absolutes. You definitely cannot sue the legislature for passing a law, for example. You cannot sue the President for ordering the military to bomb Syria, or sue the governor of your state for declaring "sanctuary" status.


I'm fairly certain that sovereign immunity does not cover individual actors in government in all cases. For example, if a police officer who beats you to a pulp during a traffic stop without provocation and you want damages. However, you'll be up against other forms of immunity (qualified immunity vs. absolute immunity). I do recall that it's quite a lot easier to sue the officer as an individual in that instance than it is to sue the municipality that employed him. You'd typically want to do the latter if you could because it has bigger pockets, but I vaguely recall some sort of doctrine that requires you to demonstrate that the municipality knew its PD's training was so very bad that what happened to you met some high degree of predictability.

However, it may be that I'm wrong and in fact, every state has some kind of limited waiver of sovereign immunity that allows the bad police officer to be sued in his official capacity.



Ended up typing more than I intended, heh...
 
Mr Person said:
Yes but it's complicated, and is also different than the doctrine of "standing". Basically, there are whole lot of headache-inducing legal doctrines in play at once when you try to sue some actor in government or government itself.

It sounds like you are referring to "Sovereign Immunity", you cannot sue The United States unless congress authorizes it ("consent to sue"). I may actually have to dig up my old "federal courts/federalism/separation of powers" casebook. In short, the answer is "it depends" as it just about always the case in law. I hesitate to say much because I haven't had to know any of this stuff for quite some time and it is a pretty complex subject.

This is an example of consent to sue, aka, waiver of sovereign immunity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act

I suppose that doesn't explain very much either, though.

The two biggest questions are: (1) whom or what exactly are you suing, and (2) what are you suing for? Different rules would apply to suing an on-duty police officer for something he did to you (in his official capacity), suing the municipality that employed him, suing him for something he did to you off-duty at a bar, suing a government agency for taking a particular action, or suing a government agency for how it went about in making a new rule, a federal contractor suing the federal government for damages, and whatever other number of imaginable situations there are.

There are some absolutes. You definitely cannot sue the legislature for passing a law, for example. But you could certainly challenge a law that is being enforced against you in whatever case it is being enforced in, but then that isn't the same as "suing the government".


I'm fairly certain that sovereign immunity does not cover individual actors in government in all cases. For example, if a police officer who beats you to a pulp during a traffic stop without provocation and you want damages. However, you'll be up against other forms of immunity (qualified immunity vs. absolute immunity). I do recall that it's quite a lot easier to sue the officer as an individual in that instance than it is to sue the municipality that employed him. You'd typically want to do the latter if you could because it has bigger pockets, but I vaguely recall some sort of doctrine that requires you to demonstrate that the municipality knew its PD's training was so very bad that what happened to you met some high degree of predictability.

However, it may be that I'm wrong and in fact, every state has some kind of limited waiver of sovereign immunity that allows the bad police officer to be sued in his official capacity.



Ended up typing more than I intended, heh...
Click to expand...
No offense but this is where tl;dr is handy. Thanks anyway, I was raised on Reader's Digest......
 
Rogue Valley said:
Thank God that corrupt fat ass Christie is gone.
Click to expand...

Exactly !! Now maybe NJ medical marijuana patients can get there meds. A program approved by NJ voters and one which Donut Boy did everything he could as Governor to impede. Good riddance to politicians who do not respect there own voters decision.
 
yankintx said:
Exactly !! Now maybe NJ medical marijuana patients can get there meds. A program approved by NJ voters and one which Donut Boy did everything he could as Governor to impede. Good riddance to politicians who do not respect there own voters decision.
Click to expand...

While I recognize all the reasons Crispy Cream was a horror show I also see the reasons why Murphy will be one as well. NJ is so screwed as is any govt, business or person that spends more then it can produce, or in govt's case, take.
 
Rexedgar said:
Isn't there a clause I remember from civics class, that you need the guvmint's permission to sue them?
Click to expand...
You do, because the courts are part of the government and they decide matters of jurisdiction.

That is why we have the 2nd Amendment, so that we may secure our rights and liberty when the government fails in its duty to do the same.
 
lefty louie said:
While I recognize all the reasons Crispy Cream was a horror show I also see the reasons why Murphy will be one as well. NJ is so screwed as is any govt, business or person that spends more then it can produce, or in govt's case, take.
Click to expand...

This isn't just "the government's" fault. It's government in conjunction with labor unions. This is why Murphy is not good for New Jersey, regardless of what you thought of Christie.
 
Neomalthusian said:
This isn't just "the government's" fault. It's government in conjunction with labor unions. This is why Murphy is not good for New Jersey, regardless of what you thought of Christie.
Click to expand...

To your point of unions, I agree to a point. I do recognize however without a union many would be taken advantage of, especially those that work for the govt. You don't say what you thought of the fat bastard that recently exited the state house in Trenton, but when you defy a court order to fund contacts it makes you a scumbag and a criminal. He doesn't have to like the contracts he inherited, but he should abide by them. If he wants change all he had to do was negotiate better contracts as they came up for renewal. Murphy, well in part he's in for a surprise or two as gov. and him promising
to make NJ a sanctuary state among other things places him in the tank for me.
 
lefty louie said:
To your point of unions, I agree to a point. I do recognize however without a union many would be taken advantage of, especially those that work for the govt.
Click to expand...

I see no real basis for saying this.

You don't say what you thought of the fat bastard that recently exited the state house in Trenton, but when you defy a court order to fund contacts it makes you a scumbag and a criminal.
Click to expand...

Instead of resorting to childish name-calling, try being specific. What contracts are you talking about? I'd be interested to read up a little on whatever it is you're obliquely referencing. Also, the governor does not fund contracts, the legislature does. The Courts usually cannot dictate to the legislature what to fund.

He doesn't have to like the contracts he inherited, but he should abide by them.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced of that yet, given the state's absolute-worst financial status.

If he wants change all he had to do was negotiate better contracts as they came up for renewal. Murphy, well in part he's in for a surprise or two as gov. and him promising
to make NJ a sanctuary state among other things places him in the tank for me.
Click to expand...

The sanctuary state thing isn't the axe that is coming down on the state's neck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom