Both of these policies talk about public servants needing accountability measures. In Jorge’s there is a breakdown on how local sheriffs should be compelled to make arrests of public officials that violate their constitutional oaths. Jorge gives the example of NM governor suspending the second amendment for 30 days.
Most of Jorge’s measure is already in the law books, except that Governors are exempt to much of it because they are the executive branch heads of their states. Just as sheriffs answer to mayors, mayors answer to governors. Governors simply outrank sheriffs, and can pardon themselves of state crimes.
My proposal is directed specifically against governors, not state officials in general.
Part of Jorge’s proposal is unconstitutional, even if it would effectively mitigate issues such as the NM governor’s actions. There is a constitutional protection for states’ rights, meaning the federal government cannot take such a heavy-handed stance, creating oversight committees to police things that are state law issues.
Any citizen of New Mexico, if in violation of an unconstitutional law, can appeal to a federal court and then sue the governor for damages on a federal level once cleared of the bogus charge.
All states already have a system of checks and balances, and are capable of operating without federal government oversight, EXCEPT for cases that encroach upon the federal constitution and federal criminality.
In the specific case of New Mexico, the federal government has a few options. For instance, all federal aid and funding can be suspended to the state until her actions are undone. The state’s Supreme Court can block a governor’s executive order, as well as the national Supreme Court. Most of these cases require a court case to be brought against the governor.
While it’s true that some accountability measures exist within the current legal framework, my proposal specifically addresses the unique position of governors, who, as you noted, are not typically subject to the same accountability mechanisms as other officials due to their executive status. The proposal aims to create a uniform standard of constitutional accountability that applies to all public servants, regardless of their rank or the branch they lead.
Unconstitutionality Concerns:
The assertion that the proposal is unconstitutional because it might infringe on states’ rights overlooks that the proposal is rooted in the principle of constitutional oath enforcement, which applies to all elected officials. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant governors immunity from accountability for violating it. The proposal would empower sheriffs, not to overrule governors, but to act in the extreme circumstances where a governor’s action is clearly unconstitutional and threatens the rights of citizens.
Checks and Balances:
You mention that states already have checks and balances, which is correct, but the effectiveness of these checks can vary widely. My proposal doesn’t seek to replace these systems but to enhance them by ensuring that there is an immediate response mechanism when constitutional rights are directly violated, especially in cases where state-level checks might fail or be delayed.
Federal Oversight:
The suggestion that federal oversight is limited in state issues unless federal rights or criminality are at stake is true, but the proposal isn’t about federal oversight in general state affairs. It’s about ensuring the enforcement of the U.S. Constitution, which the federal government is charged to uphold. The act would simply provide a mechanism for immediate action when an executive order from a governor directly contravenes the Constitution, like the Second Amendment example from New Mexico.
Citizen Appeals and Federal Actions:
While citizens can appeal unconstitutional laws, this process can be lengthy and might not provide immediate relief against a governor’s executive overreach. The proposal seeks to bridge this gap by allowing for quicker accountability measures, potentially preventing harm or abuse of power before it necessitates a long legal battle.
Suspension of Federal Aid:
While this is indeed an option, it’s often seen as a punitive measure against the state as a whole rather than directly addressing the actions of one official. My proposal aims for a more surgical approach to accountability.
Judicial Intervention:
Relying solely on courts to intervene can lead to significant delays. The proposal would ensure there is a direct, immediate path to accountability, complementing, not replacing, judicial review.
In summary, the Public Servant Accountability Act isn’t about diminishing states’ rights or usurping state authority; rather, it’s about ensuring that no public servant, including governors, can act with impunity when it comes to constitutional rights. It’s about closing a gap in current accountability mechanisms to protect citizens’ rights more effectively and efficiently.
Hope this clears the intent of the proposal a bit for you and everyone else reading.