We might have be told that government officials follow the all men under the law principle. However many people don't know about is that what really happens? The truth would be shocking to many.
Here are some examples of the hard truth. Increasingly on the news there had been cases where the at fault party happens to be an member sent by a federal state or even local organization. Even though they are 100% at fault and in criminal violation under the law they had gotten away from sentences, fines, and often exempt from responsibility for what they done to their victims.
During the time when many countries had a single entitled ruler such as a King, Emperor, or a dictator they had a concept of Sovereign Immunity. Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. In constitutional monarchies the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by the courts, as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects.Essentially this translates to the King being able to murder, steal, torcher, destroy with impunity as much as he wants.
The concept of Sovereign immunity is why constitutional monarchs are so scary in the past. As Kings or Tyrants have complete control and no one can accuse them of doing anything. He is above the laws he make therefore he can break them with impunity. Therefore the founding fathers of the US had objected to monarchy as it know how dangerously powerful and uncontrollable monarchies can get depending what kind of King gets on the throne given that most immigrants fled to the New World to escape the abuses from these rulers. Therefore the idea that George Washington should become King George Washington had been turned down by the country's founding father and remarkably this is George himself. In other words George Washington had rejected offers to become king and instead became President. George Washington insisted that he would become a honored public service man instead of a ruler. Washington even decided to not run a third term insisting that presidents should only run two terms max. However while the constitutional Monarchy never existed in the US the concept of crown immunity for some unknown reason crippled into the federal government in the decades following the Declaration of Independence of the United States possibly starting from 1821 when Chief Justice John Marshall rewrote the rule book. It wasn't always the case though as in 1793 when the first suit was filed against a government organization four out of five justice members ruled governments can be sued regardless of whether they consent it or not. Though a backlash caused by this incident lead to the ratification of the 11th amendment to the constitution two years later which barred suits from foreign countries or other states.
In the past three centuries any countries in the last three countries has either completely abolished monarchies altogether thereby eliminating such ridiculous doctrine. It is hard to believe that the United States, the country that rebelled against such policies in the first place ended up not only adopting it but keeping it unto modern times. It actually had been reinforced in 1945 by the Supreme Court as "embolded" in the constitution though there is no proof of this anywhere. Essentially from time to time this has been abused as a license to inflict injustice.This however let to uprising and in 1946 Congress enacted the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in 1946 to permit lawsuits against the federal government. However, Congress specifically exempted 13 classes of tort claims from government liability. Citizens are not permitted to sue the federal government for “any claim arising out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.” In effect, the FTCA covered only “accidental” wrongs or abuses or injuries that were inflicted by government agencies or agents on citizens. If some government agent actually intended to shaft or oppress a private citizen, then the citizen is almost certainly out of luck. This essentially government officials impunity under the law.
Corrupt government personnel shift responsibility to the taxpayer or to the victim even though they are 100% at fault for mishaps. Essentially they can get away with crime if they want to. Some states such as Tennessee actually give government authority to burn down houses without just compensation in the event of emergency. The most famous case of this happened during the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. The second case happened in the Great Mississippi Flood in 1927 where the poorer wards of New Orleans were sacrificed under a wall of water when Army corp of engineers blew up levees to try to save the wealthy parts from complete flooding. Remembrance of this incident has people very suspicious that the levee was purposely blow up in secrecy after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In contrary to the fifth Amendment in the constitution that states private property is not to be taken, damaged, or deprived without Just compensation. People's rights don't disappear at the whelm of the government at a stroke of a pen or just because the government declares an "emergency" at least not according to the constitution. The government essentially has placed their foot onto the constitution saying that they can do what ever they want with it. Its up to them whether to go by it or not or how they define it. In modern times sovereign immunity has been used to acquit officials of criminal and financial penalties, liabilities, and responsibilities convicted of dangerous driving causing crash and injury, improper control of weapons, illegally raiding the wrong house and shooting owner, destroying private property without just compensation claiming it is for the public good, getting away with malpractice in public hospitals. The list goes on and on.
Sovereign immunity creates two classes of people. People above the law and people below it. Those whom the law seems to bind and those the law fails to protect. Sovereign immunity has the wrong concept that the government has to be above the law and can harm anyone they want to well serve the public. The fact that government can escape criminal and financial responsibilities for recklessly endangering citizens will mean that there is no need for them to observe the rule of due care for them even if it is required on their books. Therefore the more power the government has more people will be killed or injured and/or forced to live without jobs or homes. There are cases of government agencies not carrying insurance for activities where liability insurance is required by law such as driving a vehicle sand expect the citizen's insurance to cover the consequences of their recklessness forcing the citizen to pay higher premiums and suffer in the long run without proper compensation. Or taxpayer funds garnished for compensation due to the intentional inexcusable actions of a personnel. The doctrine of “sovereign immunity” illustrates how power corrupts. If government officials did not already feel far superior to private citizens, they would not have the audacity to claim a right to injure them without compensation. That some government agents, are punished on rare occasion for example San Francisco County's Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi(for domestic violence) merely shows that the power of contemporary governments is not absolute. Even tyrants occasionally find it in their interest to sacrifice one of their underlings to placate public wrath.