11-30-2017, 06:22 PM
(11-30-2017, 05:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'd argue the congressman is actually an exec/manager (whatever you want to call them, but NOT an owner/employer) that works FOR the people. He would be indemnified just like any other manager would be by the owner and shareholders.
I'll agree about the transparency so the taxpayer can remove them from office if they so choose, but doing work on behalf of the taxpayer clearly means the liability accrues to the taxpayer.
See, you have to go and make a good point. I will counter, however, with the idea of sovereign immunity. The taxpayers, the federal government, cannot be sued under this doctrine. There is the Federal Tort Claims Act to waive this doctrine on a limited basis, but I would argue that in cases such as this should not have this immunity waived and lawmakers should be treated as individuals in these claims.
