With the exception of the president, there is always an authority that can arrest/punish an authority (including the military). Incorrect interpretation of the

With the exception of the president, there is always an authority that can arrest/punish an authority (including the military). Incorrect interpretation of the law is not what I am talking about, intentional violation is. The clerks that denied marriage licenses before the ruling did not violate the law and after the ruling yes, they did act on behalf of government (not that I am expressing my view on the matter). What happened was one clerk was jailed indefinitetly (human rights violation!) Until she complied instead of measured punishment and removal from office. Regarding the law makers, the law maker that introduced it should be punished if it can be proven he violated the bill of rights on purpose (intent). You can't say the law is not clear enough to punish people. You're essentially saying the law is a guideline open to free interpretation. If I kill someone with a gun, is it murder? It depends right, even in such a simple scenario the law is not clear cut, that's why you have judges. A cop on duty can get away with a shooting if he feared for his life, in certain states you can proactively stand your ground and kill intruders. No matter what, judges interpret law and lack of clarity is fine. The crime is violating constitutional law while acting on behalf of government. Intentional ignorance of the bill of rights or malicious violation of the same must be proven in court to find a person guilty.