I would add that under the constitutional remedy for removing politicians from office, namely through impeachment, impeachment is a political process and not a legal process and therefore there are no circumstances in which sovereign immunity could be applied to an impeachment hearing
This issue of sovereign immunity in the Brunson case is very much like the problem of him failing to offer any evidence that the election was rigged. That is to say, its a problem entirely of his own making. As noted in the district court order and judgement:
“Providing that sovereign immunity "forecloses ... claims against the House of Representatives and Senate as institutions, as well as Members "acting in their official capacities")
-Brunson v. Adams, 1:21-CV-00111-JNP-JCB, n.28 (D. Utah Oct. 19, 2021)
In other words, you cannot sue them as members of that federal institution acting in the official capacity.... Plus, according to the 10th Circuit:
“Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.”
He chose to sue in a way that created the sovereign immunity complication... For example, had he sued Nancy Pelosi, sovereign immunity would be inapplicable. Instead he chose to sue "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi" and as a member of Congress acting in their official capacity, the speaker of the house has default sovereign immunity.... As opposed to Nancy Pelosi, who is just a citizen, like any of the rest of us.
I am making assumption that US congress members must post a performance bond prior to being sworn in... I see that ~ In 1792, Congress passed a law creating the office of Paymaster General and made the taking of office contingent on the positing of a $20,000 bond ~ Since the claim (one of them anyway) is failure to uphold their Oath(s) of office wouldn't it be more "actionable" to make clam of -- Generally there are three types of acts covered by a public official bond.
1.) Misfeasance occurs where a public official fails to perform a duty of his or her office. It is a mistake or error without criminal intent or violation of law which causes damages to the public. Simply put misfeasance is the wrongful performance of a legal act.
2.) Nonfeasance is the result of a public official neglecting to perform a duty, that INACTION causing harm or damages to the public. Under tort law, an individual generally does not incur liability for a failure to act where the individual has no preexisting relationship with the injured party(ies). A public official is held to a different standard. His or her failure to act where the position requires he or she to do so is a violation and incurs liability.
This public bond is something I know nothing about. It sounds interesting and I am happy to revisit the topic when I have the time to research it. But when it comes to removing politicians from office if they have done something that is seen as breaking their oath, or damaging the public confidence in their ability to continue to hold office, the Constitution provides a clear remedy for removal from office in the form of articles of impeachment..
And I totally support any effort to impeach someone in political office if people feel they have violated their oath or damaged public trust in them
sovereign immunity could thus be easily side-stepped with that approach, its not about what they "did", its about what they didn't do.
I would add that under the constitutional remedy for removing politicians from office, namely through impeachment, impeachment is a political process and not a legal process and therefore there are no circumstances in which sovereign immunity could be applied to an impeachment hearing
This issue of sovereign immunity in the Brunson case is very much like the problem of him failing to offer any evidence that the election was rigged. That is to say, its a problem entirely of his own making. As noted in the district court order and judgement:
“Providing that sovereign immunity "forecloses ... claims against the House of Representatives and Senate as institutions, as well as Members "acting in their official capacities")
-Brunson v. Adams, 1:21-CV-00111-JNP-JCB, n.28 (D. Utah Oct. 19, 2021)
In other words, you cannot sue them as members of that federal institution acting in the official capacity.... Plus, according to the 10th Circuit:
“Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.”
-Brunson v. Adams, No. 22-4007, 1 (10th Cir. Oct. 6, 2022)
He chose to sue in a way that created the sovereign immunity complication... For example, had he sued Nancy Pelosi, sovereign immunity would be inapplicable. Instead he chose to sue "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi" and as a member of Congress acting in their official capacity, the speaker of the house has default sovereign immunity.... As opposed to Nancy Pelosi, who is just a citizen, like any of the rest of us.
I am making assumption that US congress members must post a performance bond prior to being sworn in... I see that ~ In 1792, Congress passed a law creating the office of Paymaster General and made the taking of office contingent on the positing of a $20,000 bond ~ Since the claim (one of them anyway) is failure to uphold their Oath(s) of office wouldn't it be more "actionable" to make clam of -- Generally there are three types of acts covered by a public official bond.
1.) Misfeasance occurs where a public official fails to perform a duty of his or her office. It is a mistake or error without criminal intent or violation of law which causes damages to the public. Simply put misfeasance is the wrongful performance of a legal act.
2.) Nonfeasance is the result of a public official neglecting to perform a duty, that INACTION causing harm or damages to the public. Under tort law, an individual generally does not incur liability for a failure to act where the individual has no preexisting relationship with the injured party(ies). A public official is held to a different standard. His or her failure to act where the position requires he or she to do so is a violation and incurs liability.
This public bond is something I know nothing about. It sounds interesting and I am happy to revisit the topic when I have the time to research it. But when it comes to removing politicians from office if they have done something that is seen as breaking their oath, or damaging the public confidence in their ability to continue to hold office, the Constitution provides a clear remedy for removal from office in the form of articles of impeachment..
And I totally support any effort to impeach someone in political office if people feel they have violated their oath or damaged public trust in them