3 ms·

If QI should exist it should at least be codified into law by Congress and given some rigorous rules to when it applies etc. As it stands now QI is just someth

by tephra 5y ago

If QI should exist it should at least be codified into law by Congress and given some rigorous rules to when it applies etc. As it stands now QI is just something made up by SCOTUS and not created by anyone representing the people.

AequitasOmnibus 5y ago
Not quite true. The idea of sovereign immunity is fundamental to our constitution. While QI isn't codified in the way you're talking about, Congress and the states do have laws on the books to expose themselves to liability. That's where QI comes from - as an extension of statutory authority to hold the government legally liable. When and how the government and its agents are exposed to liability is very clearly spelled out.
- fieldcny 5y ago
  You comment indicates you are somewhat knowledgeable about this, so a question for you. I think the first police forces were established 60+ years after the constitution was written, do you think they would have given that same level of immunity to an armed branch of the government? Seems like the restrictions on military actions within the countries borders would indicate a general skepticism towards armed agents of the government.
  - AequitasOmnibus 5y ago
    I don't think the founders would have conceptualized governmental liability the way that we do in the modern era. Even hallmark legislation like 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a product of 20th century jurisprudence. Very early supreme court opinions took a nearly absolutist position on private right of action against the government being barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The court has slowly backed away from that position over time.
- 0des 5y ago
  So are you people using the downvotes to disagree, or to voice discontent? I wish people would provide more context when an otherwise seemingly logical prompt is being greyed out and people like me who -want- to know more, and -want- to hear the counterpoint are just shrugging.
  - effingwewt 5y ago
    That's how it used to be then PG made a post about it and here we are. Flagging for egregious rule-breaking, whatever- but just because someone farmed fake points off the TOP sort, they can go around effectively muting people for sometimes no reason at all. I've often wondered about scraping HN for dead/flagged comments and see how many were actually throughout, insightful comments vs how many were just trollbait/flaming. I just feel it may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Maybe today will be the day, but shit that's a whole lot of comments to collate, sort and read. Every time I see a grey comment though....

by tephra 5y ago

AequitasOmnibus 5y ago

Not quite true. The idea of sovereign immunity is fundamental to our constitution. While QI isn't codified in the way you're talking about, Congress and the states do have laws on the books to expose themselves to liability. That's where QI comes from - as an extension of statutory authority to hold the government legally liable. When and how the government and its agents are exposed to liability is very clearly spelled out.

fieldcny 5y ago
You comment indicates you are somewhat knowledgeable about this, so a question for you. I think the first police forces were established 60+ years after the constitution was written, do you think they would have given that same level of immunity to an armed branch of the government? Seems like the restrictions on military actions within the countries borders would indicate a general skepticism towards armed agents of the government.
- AequitasOmnibus 5y ago
  I don't think the founders would have conceptualized governmental liability the way that we do in the modern era. Even hallmark legislation like 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a product of 20th century jurisprudence. Very early supreme court opinions took a nearly absolutist position on private right of action against the government being barred under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The court has slowly backed away from that position over time.
0des 5y ago
So are you people using the downvotes to disagree, or to voice discontent? I wish people would provide more context when an otherwise seemingly logical prompt is being greyed out and people like me who -want- to know more, and -want- to hear the counterpoint are just shrugging.
- effingwewt 5y ago
  That's how it used to be then PG made a post about it and here we are. Flagging for egregious rule-breaking, whatever- but just because someone farmed fake points off the TOP sort, they can go around effectively muting people for sometimes no reason at all. I've often wondered about scraping HN for dead/flagged comments and see how many were actually throughout, insightful comments vs how many were just trollbait/flaming. I just feel it may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Maybe today will be the day, but shit that's a whole lot of comments to collate, sort and read. Every time I see a grey comment though....