Replies

Haven't had an answer that makes sense yet.

I think one of the major factors behind the country's slide into lawlessness is a failure to recognize that because not all illegitimate acts justify a possible remedy, the fact that a particular act is found not to justify a remedy does not imply that the act was legitimate. Related to that is a failure to recognize that government agents are required to make a good faith effort to act legitimately, and not merely to avoid acting sufficiently illegitimately as to justify a remedy [a distinction which would become very relevant if there were a proper distinction between "legitimate acts" and "illegitimate acts which do not justify a remedy".]

As an example, consider the Fifth Amendment prohibition against denial of property without due process of law. The issuance of a search warrant is not "due process" sufficient to give cops carte blanche to destroy someone's property. Accidental damage of property during a search would not render the search illegitimate; even intentional destruction of property could be legitimate if genuinely necessary to the performance of a search [e.g. if a property has multiple entrances, all of which are locked, cops may be justified in forcing entry even if it causes some damage, provided they attempt to minimize such damage]. The fact that some damage may be acceptable, however, does not give cops the right to cause any deliberate damage without first making reasonable effort to avoid causing any [e.g. checking to see if any doors are unlocked, or if keys are hidden in obvious places]. The fact that courts are unlike to take action against a cop who causes e.g. $20 worth of damage doesn't mean that a cop who could easily have avoided causing any damage but instead tries to cause only $19.50 worth of should be deemed to have acted in good faith if the damage ends up being $25. Unfortunately, because of courts' failures to make a distinction between the level of damage a cop may inflict without any cause whatsoever and the level of damage sufficient to justify a remedy, any level of damage which doesn't justify a remedy will be regarded as de facto legitimate; in future, damages which are only slightly beyond the "legitimate" level will be found not to justify a remedy, and become a new de facto standard, etc.

At this point, the only way to restore legitimate governance is to recognize that an inability to order remedies for past government actions should not imply any obligation to declare them as having been legitimate. Courts need to be willing to say, essentially, "We're sorry you were harmed by the government, but there's no remedy we could order which would not cause problems just as bad as the harm which was done to you. Our inability to remedy the harm should not be taken as a justification for the government's actions, but rather as a denunciation. People who contributed to the unfortunate chain of events in the past may have been acting in good faith, but government employees who contribute to such events in the future will be regarded as having done so in bad faith.

Incidentally, in addition to allowing courts to find that many past actions were never legitimate, but may have been done in good faith, I would like to see legislation offering government employees who have not yet been charged with violating people's civil rights a deal: if they waive the statute of limitations on such charges and agree to resign from and never again occupy any government position of direct or indirect discretionary authority over persons who are not government employees, they will not be charged unless or until they attempt to assume such a position. I suspect many employees who presently feel a need to keep their positions lest a successor uncover their wrongdoing, might be inclined to instead go quietly; it is IMHO more important to get such people out of government than to ensure that they face justice.