[Listen to the audio version by using the player below.]

We’ve heard the word ‘dereliction’ used a lot recently, and I assumed that I understood its meaning. I was most familiar with the term when used in the phrase Dereliction of Duty, which is common in current discourse. I assumed it referred to a failure to carry out a responsibility. As it turns out, I didn’t have this quite right.

My well-worn Webster’s dictionary defines ‘dereliction’ as: “deliberate or conscious neglect: negligence.” The critical aspect of the meaning that I had not fully grasped is that negligence is deliberate; it is a conscious act. The use of the term’ dereliction of duty’ indicates that the failure of duty to which it refers is intentional. A parallel in law would characterize such as willful or gross negligence, which itself is: “A lack of care that demonstrates a reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others… .”

Is it accurate to say that an intentional failure to act in the face of a pandemic constitutes dereliction of duty? Yes, I believe it is. Is it also fair to say that a conscious failure to protect troops on a battlefield is also a dereliction of duty? There too, I believe the answer is yes. Yet what recourse is there when a high government official is derelict?

English common law established the concept of Sovereign Immunity to protect the King and his administration of government. This legal firewall is reported to date back to the Romans with the maxim rex non potest peccare, which translates to, “The King can do no wrong.” This concept forms the basis of governmental immunity in the United States today and often limits us from taking our leaders to task in the face of their dereliction. It has no place in our democracy.

All holders of high office in the US must first and foremost be citizens. Our citizenship, not our bloodline, allows any of us to aspire to high office. One of the primary tenants of citizenship is that we are subject to the laws of this country. Citizenship is not deferred when one attains high office; it is, in fact, foundational. Therefore, we must limit Sovereign Immunity to permit timely legal protections from those in high office whose’ Dereliction of Duty’ has resulted in harm to our democracy and the citizens therein. No citizen is above the law. We have no Kings here.

*****

Kevin Deeny