Law-Breaking And Elected Officials: Who Endorses It?

Breaking the law is clearly not something governments can or should endorse. However, some politicians regard civil disobedience as a part of a greater tradition of resisting political injustice. In a 2019 survey, 28% of Americans said they thought a sizable minority of elected officials break the law or abuse the powers of their office. When elected officials violate their oath to uphold the law, they breach the foundation of their service to the people. The consequences for such violations vary depending on the nature of the transgression and the office held.

Impeachment and removal from office

The impeachment process is a formal way to hold elected officials accountable for their actions and to remove them from office if they are found guilty of wrongdoing. The process is outlined in the United States Constitution, which grants the power of impeachment to Congress. The House of Representatives brings charges of impeachment against an official, which can include the president, vice president, federal judges, and other civil officers of the United States. The charges must be approved by a simple majority vote in the House for the official to be impeached.

Once an official is impeached, the Senate holds a trial to determine their guilt. In the case of a presidential impeachment trial, the chief justice of the United States presides. The Senate considers the evidence, hears witnesses, and votes to acquit or convict the impeached official. A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required for a conviction. If an official is convicted, they are removed from office and may be barred from holding future office. However, impeachment does not preclude criminal liability, and convicted officials may still face criminal charges.

Impeachment is a serious process that has been used sparingly, with only 21 impeachments out of over 60 impeachment proceedings initiated by the House. It is an important check on the executive and judicial branches, holding government officials accountable for violations of the law and abuses of power. The definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is grounds for impeachment, has been debated and fleshed out over time through the practice of impeachments.

In addition to impeachment and removal from office, there are other consequences for elected officials who violate their oath or break the law. These can include criminal and civil penalties, censure and reprimand, loss of public trust and electoral defeat, and disqualification from future office.

Criminal and civil penalties

Impeachment and Removal from Office:

Impeachment is the primary constitutional mechanism to hold federal elected officials accountable, including the President, judges, and other civil officers. As outlined in Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, officials can be impeached and removed from office for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives, followed by a trial in the Senate, and can result in the official's removal from office and disqualification from holding future offices.

Criminal Charges and Prosecution:

Elected officials who violate the law can face criminal charges, including violations of federal statutes. Acts such as bribery, fraud, or abuse of power are prosecutable offences, and convictions can result in penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. These charges reinforce the principle that elected officials are subject to the same laws they enforce on others.

Civil Lawsuits and Compensation:

In addition to criminal penalties, victims of misconduct by elected officials can pursue civil lawsuits. They can sue the official for damages and hold them personally liable for their actions. While qualified immunity and other legal doctrines may pose challenges, civil lawsuits can provide a pathway for justice and compensation for those whose rights have been violated.

Censure and Reprimand:

In cases where an elected official's actions do not rise to the level of criminal activity or impeachable offences, Congress or state legislatures may issue formal censures or reprimands. These public condemnations serve to tarnish the official's reputation and signal that their behaviour is unacceptable. While censure does not carry legal consequences, it holds officials accountable and reinforces ethical standards.

Loss of Public Trust and Electoral Defeat:

Breaking the law or failing to uphold their oath can lead to a significant loss of public trust in elected officials. Constituents expect their representatives to uphold their responsibilities and commitments. As a result, violating the public's trust can lead to electoral defeat and removal from office through the democratic process.

Disqualification from Future Office:

In some cases, elected officials who break the law may face disqualification from holding future offices. This penalty is often imposed during impeachment trials and seeks to prevent individuals who have abused their positions or disregarded their oaths from returning to positions of power.

It is important to note that the specific penalties and consequences may vary depending on the nature of the offence, the jurisdiction, and the office held by the elected official. Additionally, there have been criticisms and challenges in pursuing criminal and civil penalties against government officials, with some arguing that they often get away with breaking the law. Nonetheless, these criminal and civil penalties serve as crucial mechanisms to hold elected officials accountable and reinforce the rule of law.

Censure and reprimand

While breaking the law is not something governments can or should endorse, some politicians regard civil disobedience as a part of a greater tradition of resisting political injustice. Civil disobedience is viewed by some as a way to protect the values they are trying to uphold in government.

In the case of elected officials, the consequences of breaking the law vary depending on the nature of the transgression and the office held. When elected officials violate their oath to uphold the Constitution, they breach the foundation of their service to the people. While impeachment and removal from office are the most direct constitutional remedies, censure and reprimand are also options for addressing misconduct that does not rise to the level of criminal activity or impeachable offenses.

In addition to censure and reprimand, other consequences for elected officials who break the law include criminal and civil penalties, loss of public trust, disqualification from future office, and electoral defeat.

Loss of public trust and electoral defeat

When elected officials break the law, it often leads to a loss of public trust. This can result in a backlash from their constituents, who expect them to uphold their responsibilities and obligations. In representative democracies, the ballot box serves as a powerful tool for citizens to hold officials accountable and remove those who fail to honour their commitments.

Public scrutiny, often fuelled by media and grassroots movements, plays a crucial role in holding officials accountable for their actions. This scrutiny can lead to increased public awareness and engagement, potentially influencing election outcomes. Officials who are perceived to have violated the public trust may face challenges from opponents who capitalise on the situation to gain political advantage.

The impact of losing public trust can vary depending on the specific context and the nature of the law broken. For example, in the case of Montreal city councillor Christine Gosselin, her endorsement of civil disobedience in the form of a climate strike led to criticism and distance from other city councillors and the mayor. This resulted in a public statement condemning her actions as endangering people and first responders.

In another instance, Regina mayor Michael Fougere's comment that there is "never a time for civil disobedience" sparked outrage from fellow politicians and city residents. This statement was seen as ignorant by local activism groups, highlighting the ambiguous nature of civil disobedience in Canadian politics.

The consequences of losing public trust can also extend beyond the individual official. It can impact the broader political landscape, influencing the reputation and public perception of their political party or affiliation. It may also contribute to a wider sense of disillusionment with the political system, potentially leading to lower voter turnout and increased political apathy.

To regain public trust, elected officials may need to engage in damage control and actively work to rebuild their reputation. This could involve issuing public apologies, taking corrective actions, or demonstrating a renewed commitment to their constituents' interests and well-being.

Disqualification from future office

The process of impeachment begins in the House of Representatives and, if approved, is followed by a trial in the Senate. If the official is convicted, they are removed from office and may be barred from holding future office. This process holds public servants accountable and preserves the rule of law, ensuring that no one is above it.

In addition to disqualification, elected officials who violate the law may face criminal charges, including violations of federal statutes. Acts such as bribery, fraud, or abuse of power can lead to prosecution, with potential penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. These charges reinforce the principle that elected officials are subject to the same laws they enforce on others.

The consequences of violating the Constitution can vary depending on the nature of the transgression and the office held. While impeachment and criminal penalties are formal legal consequences, there are also other repercussions, such as censure and reprimand, loss of public trust, and electoral defeat.

The varying levels of consequences demonstrate the importance of holding elected officials accountable for their actions and upholding the integrity of the democratic process.

Frequently asked questions