Can the American public sue congressmen?

Discussion in 'Congress' started by buddhallah_the_christ, Jun 6, 2015.

  1. buddhallah_the_christ
    Offline

    buddhallah_the_christ Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2014
    Messages:
    372
    Thanks Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127
    Are you tired of lie being fed by politicians?
    With all the ads of congressmen/women promising different things if elected, I got to wondering, if they don't hold up to what they promised can the American public sue them for it?
    Like false advertising or something?
    It is a high time to oppose any lie in our political system.
     
  2. quorthon
    Offline

    quorthon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    497
    Thanks Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ratings:
    +74
    No way, I guess they have some kind of integrity. Besides, which one of judges will respond adequately and will be ready to initiate so loud proceedings?
     
  3. Delta4Embassy
    Offline

    Delta4Embassy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    25,745
    Thanks Received:
    3,026
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +8,225
    Have proposed holding political candidates liable for campaign promises or recall themf rom office if they don't follow through within a reasonable amount of time, but no one ever listens. :)
     
  4. Vermonter
    Offline

    Vermonter Old Vermonter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    96
    Thanks Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Southern Vermont.. where it only goes to 30 below
    Ratings:
    +49
    Or we simply fire them at election time.
     
  5. Idadunno
    Offline

    Idadunno Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    336
    Thanks Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Ratings:
    +144
    You can sue a congressperson if that person caused you personal harm (hit you with their car) but you cannot sue Congress. You can sue over a law to have it declared unconstitutional thus overriding an act of Congress.
     
  6. Christophera
    Offline

    Christophera Evidence & Reason Rule

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,298
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Santa Barbara CA
    Ratings:
    +74
    An attorney think its possible and has purposefully selected a court to do it in.

    The suit was against McConnell and Boehner for failing to call an Article V convention.

    I'm going to find out what happened to the case.

    Friends Of the Article V Convention

    ON EDIT:
    I've done some research to find that the courts are basically colluding with congress in a predictable fashion. Sibley however is doing an excellent job of proving their, as well as congressional non/mal feasance.

    http://montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/OppMDismiss.pdf

    Take note and prepare to assemble accordingly in defense of the principles of the republic.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2015
  7. imawhosure
    Offline

    imawhosure Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,517
    Thanks Received:
    1,038
    Trophy Points:
    345
    Ratings:
    +4,279
    Sadly, no you can't! The law protects them in their lies, and trust me when I tell you that you have already been flagged by Homeland.

    While they are not Nazis, the only way to get them out is by YOU getting involved. Changing over 1 or 10 is not enough. The monikers we put on them as far as Dem or Repub is ridiculous.

    Just find an honest person, hold their feet to the fire until reinforcements show up, and you will be well served.
     
  8. Christophera
    Offline

    Christophera Evidence & Reason Rule

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,298
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Santa Barbara CA
    Ratings:
    +74
    I agree with the ridiculousness of partisanship, however, I've been marked by those that created DHS long before DHS.

    You are using "all or nothing thinking", which is a distortion. Critical thinking cannot be done with distortions.

    You might be surprised at how many do relate to nazis through operation paperclip. However, very few things are all one way or another. A little of both inhabits most things.

    Accordingly, amongst all of those you describe, there is a potential appreciation for what is right. A comprehension of how that is to manifest might not exist, but the basic appreciation is there. I appeal to that, and you could too, but you must abandon cognitive distortions and embrace critical thinking.

    Doing that with the intentions of the framers of the founding documents engages natural law in the hearts and minds of those perceiving your words. Such, changes a great deal.
     
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,288
    Thanks Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,085
    Dear buddhallah_the_christ
    I think we could start a movement suing political PARTIES over their campaigns, legislation and lobbying that is unconstitutional and discrimination by creed, and argue it is conspiring to violate equal civil rights of
    people with other political and religious beliefs being punished, harassed, censored or excluded unlawfully from our equal rights to representation, defense of our beliefs and consent, and free exercise of our values that are equal.

    As for anyone in govt office, there is the IMMUNITY that has to be beaten.
    This is very hard to do legally.

    Better to set up terms of agreements IN ADVANCE where the govt set up
    does not allow people in office to violate civil and constitutional rights and then depend on "suing afterwards"
    to "restore" these rights, as we have now.

    We should write stronger Constitutional enforcements where if any CONTESTED issue comes up with Constitutional rights, beliefs, conflicts in values and ethics complaints, then BEFORE going through lawsuits,
    there should be a GRIEVANCE process to allow support for mediation and conflict resolution to reach a consensus.

    There should be means to check govt directly without relying on "winning a lawsuit" first.
    Otherwise people are not protected equally.

    I think you are on the right track, but the intervention would have to come BEFORE it gets to lawsuits and court "after the fact"

    We need to be able to address conflicts IN ADVANCE.
     

Share This Page