If the hypothesis I have put forward is indeed valid, then the fact of illegality will be of little importance if, as the official hopes, the action is successful. But if the action is not successful, then illegality will lead to greater political punishment than it would have been caused by a legal policy that has also failed. That is, a successful illegal policy will bring a higher political gain than an unsuccessful right-wing policy, which in turn will bring a higher political reward than an unsuccessful illegal policy. The threat of sanctions therefore often generates true obedience. That is, the threat of sanctions often causes people to treat what the law requires as a reason to act and take action because the legal requirements supported by the sanctions are met that they would not have taken otherwise. For much of the law, most of the time, it is the punishment associated with the violation, not the simple fact that the law is the law that does the work. This is an important distinction, and it will become even more so as the analysis progresses. For now, according to H.L.A. Hart (1994), we must distinguish the simple fact that something is the law as the reason for an action or decision from the fact that the sanction for disobedience is the reason for an act or decision.
However, while we should pay attention to this distinction, we will likely find that in most cases, for most people, the presence of sanctions makes sanction-related obedience and internalized-committed-produced obedience identical in practice. Some people may pay taxes or meet the speed limit simply because they want to comply with the law,4 but if non-compliance is risky in a tangible sense based on penalties, the widespread link between sanction avoidance and internalized legal obligation makes it difficult to separate the two, and therefore difficult to assess the prevalence of these, who want to stick to it. even if they think it is not in their interest to do so, and even if they think the requirement is false.5 8 A telling contrast is the distinction between the reactions to the invasion of Iraq and the bombing of Kosovo, which were about as illegal under international law (Bradley & Goldsmith 2005, 2090, No. 186). International law occupies a much less prominent place in American political debate and public opinion than domestic law, but it should nevertheless be noted that those who have objected to Iraq being a violation of international law have rarely, if ever, made the same claim regarding Kosovo. As I have discussed in previous writings (Schauer 2007, 2010c, 2011b), there are many other examples of illegal political acts or positions that appear to have had little or no negative political consequences. One such example is the decision of the mayors of San Francisco and New Paltz, New York, to marry same-sex couples in violation of state law at the time. With sympathies in both states for the legalization of same-sex marriage, the illegality of yesterday and today was seen as somewhere between trivial and courageous. And on the same topic, when Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick specifically urged members of the Legislature to ignore a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling requiring a vote on a proposed referendum to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, his actions had no negative political impact. In many other cases, from New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin`s public call for immediate federal military aid after Hurricane Katrina, to Mayor (now Senator) Ray Menendez`s support for Americans who illegally launched military action against the Cuban regime, to the violation of New York`s Taylor Act by leaders of the Transit Workers Union and other public employee unions, Being illegal in the face of popular political initiatives or positions has had little or no negative political or reputational consequences. Less strikingly, the frequent willingness of Congress to ignore the legislative law appears to have virtually no political consequences and is therefore a practice that has had no negative political consequences for anyone (Bar-Simon-Tov 2010).
Do you know of another solution for crossword puzzles that contain a change in the law? Now add your answer to the crossword database. The purpose of this article is to examine exactly these issues. The aim is to examine whether a violation of the law is politically, socially, culturally and prudentially risky for public servants, and if so, what those risks are and under what conditions they exist – and no. I begin by attempting to clarify the issue of obedience – or disobedience – to the law by referring to a rich and long-standing philosophical literature. I then examine law enforcement and political sanctions for non-compliance in the context of the recent controversy over US military action in Libya and its possible violation of the war powers resolution. In short, I overlook various other current and less recent examples of official disregard for the law and the consequences, if any, of that contempt. Finally, I propose an informal framework – which is hardly a model, although an approach that could allow others to build one – designed to embody greater lessons that could be learned from Libya and other examples. To anticipate my conclusion, I will argue that the violation of the law appears to have a complex political effect, so that the fact of the violation of the law, apart from formal legal sanctions, seems to play at most a minor role in preventing officials from participating in those actions that are acceptable or prove acceptable for political and political reasons. but that violating the law increases political punishment for official acts that are unacceptable for political reasons or that prove unacceptable. Since officials who make political decisions are generally unable to predict ex ante with near certainty whether the actions taken by those decisions will prove acceptable or unacceptable for political and political reasons, rational officials will perform a complex calculation in which increased political sanction for unpopular acts, which are also illegal, means that they need more trust before taking illegal measures that may prove reckless, or taking more unpopular legal measures than before, which can also prove reckless or unpopular ex post. to achieve what you want by breaking the rules or finding smart ways of working within these rules This article has a 2-pronged goal.
First, it seeks to ask, in a somewhat nuanced and legally informed way, whether the law is in fact as much an obstacle to official action as the pervasive rhetoric about the rule of law often assumes. Once we realize that obedience to the law is more than just taking action for non-legal reasons that do not violate the law, we are in a better position to ask how much formal obedience to the law there really is. There are some to be sure of, and there may even be a lot of them. But if sanctions are removed from the picture and the obligation to obey the law is visible to all, such an obligation may be empirically less a part of American public and official life than is often assumed. The law may be a rhetorical addition to public servants who choose a course of action for non-legal political and political reasons, but it may well be that the law serves much more to justify decisions made for reasons other than it actually does, to motivate the decisions of officials who have no reason to: fear formal legal sanctions in case of violation of the law. However, even if the above examples are indeed representative, it would be a mistake to conclude from these examples that violations of the law simply do not play a role in public and political assessment. And that would be a mistake, because the fact of the violation of the law seems to play a role if the illegal official actions prove less successful or have less political support. Consider, for example, the diverse and interconnected actions of the George W. Bush administration regarding Iraq and terrorism. Many of these actions, including the torture of various proven and alleged al-Qaeda operatives through simulated drowning and surveillance of U.S. citizens without a warrant, explicitly violated a clear law, for example, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Pub.