Re: Other crt rules child abuse investigation unconstitutional

[Greg Hanson]

> Yes. The caseworkers should not be held liable for
> acting pursuant to a presumptively valid statute.

But as Fern said, NOW they are on notice!
Next time around they would NOT be immune.

But I still don't understand how enforcers of the law
can hide behind ignorance of the law to exempt them
from law suits. If they don't know the laws about
what they DO FOR A LIVING, why should they be exempt?

Or (another way) If they don't know the laws about
what they are doing for a living, maybe they should
consider a different vocation.

[Ron]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> > Yes. The caseworkers should not be held liable for
> > acting pursuant to a presumptively valid statute.
>
> But as Fern said, NOW they are on notice!
> Next time around they would NOT be immune.
>
> But I still don't understand how enforcers of the law
> can hide behind ignorance of the law to exempt them
> from law suits. If they don't know the laws about
> what they DO FOR A LIVING, why should they be exempt?

Sorry Greg, but no one, not even attornies, are fully conversant with the
laws under which they work or for the job in which they find themselves in.
None. There are just to many laws out there. To much regulation. If you
had a job you would know this.

We know and understand the basics (hopefully), and we trust the experts to
tell us about the rest. But even the experts cannot know for certain how a
judge is going to rule on a particular law, and this is why so many cases
end up in appellate courts.

Ron

> Or (another way) If they don't know the laws about
> what they are doing for a living, maybe they should
> consider a different vocation.