1、本科毕业设计（论文）外文翻译原文AREASONABLEPUBLICSERVANTCONSTITUTIONALFOUNDATIONSOFADMINISTRATIVECONDUCTINTHEUNITEDSTATESTHECONSTITUTIONANDAREASONABLEPUBLICSERVANTINNOVEMBER2004,THEUSOFFICEOFPERSONNELMANAGEMENTOPMARRANGEDFORSEVENTYFEDERALEXECUTIVESTOVISITTHENATIONALCONSTITUTIONCENTERONINDEPENDENCEMALLINPHILADELPHIA
2、,PENNSYLVANIATHEEXECUTIVESWEREONAMANAGEMENTRETREATWHATCOULDTHEYGAINFROMVISITINGAMUSEUMDEDICATEDTOTHEUSCONSTITUTIONWHATDOESTHECONSTITUTIONHAVETODOWITHPUBLICMANAGEMENTOPMDIRECTORKAYCOLESJAMESGAVEASHORTANSWERTHEEXECUTIVESVISITWASPARTOFAWIDERINITIATIVETOBRING“HEIGHTENEDAWARENESSANDRESPECT”TOTHEOATHALLFE
3、DERALEMPLOYEESTAKETO“SUPPORTANDDOMESTIC”ALONGANSWERISTHATTODAY“AREASONABLYCOMPETENT”PUBLICSERVANT“SHOULDKNOWTHELAWGOVERNINGHISORHERCONDUCT”MUCHOFTHATLAWISCONSTITUTIONALLAW,THATIS,LAWMADEBYFEDERALJUDGESINTHECOURSEOFINTERPRETINGTHECONSTITUTIONSWORDSANDAPPLYINGTHEMININDIVIDUALCOURTCASESSIMILARLY,STATEJ
4、UDGESMAKESTATECONSTITUTIONALLAWTHROUGHTHEIRINTERPRETATIONOFTHESTATECONSTITUTIONSTODAY,CONSTITUTIONALLAWCOMPREHENSIVELYREGULATESTHEPUBLICSERVICEATALLLEVELSOFGOVERNMENTINTHEUNITEDSTATESASJAMESSUGGEST,PUBLICSERVANTSSHOULDBEGUIDEDBYTHECONSTITUTIONINTHEIRDECISIONMAKINGANDOTHERACTIONSUNDERSTANDINGWHATTHEC
5、ONSTITUTIONDEMANDSOFTHEMISAMATTEROFBASICJOBCOMPETENCEFORPUBLICSERVANTSTHISFUNDAMENTALLYSETSTHEMAPARTFROMTHEWORLDOFPRIVATESECTORMANAGEMENT,WHETHERFORPROFITORNOTPROFITTHECONSTITUTIONREGULATESPUBLICSERVANTSDEALINGSWITHCLIENTS,CUSTOMERS,SUBORDINATEEMPLOYEES,PRISONERS,PATIENTSCONFINEDTOPUBLICMENTALHEALTH
6、FACILITIES,CONTRACTORS,ANDINDIVIDUALSINVOLVEDIN“STREETLEVEL”ENCOUNTERSSUCHASPOLICESTOPS,PUBLICSCHOOLDISCIPLINARYACTIONS,ANDHEALTHANDWORKPLACESAFETYINSPECTIONSBYCONTRAST,THECONSTITUTIONHASNOAPPLICATIONTOPURELYPRIVATERELATIONSHIPANDACTIVITIESOTHERTHAN1BARRINGSLAVERYANDINVOLUNTARYSERVITUDETHIRTEENTHAME
7、NDMENT2RESTRICTINGTHEACTIONSOFALIMITEDCLASSOFPRIVATEENTITIESTHATARECONSIDEREDSTATE“GOVERNMENTAL”ACTORSFORCONSTITUTIONALPURPOSESWHENAPUBLICMANAGERDISCIPLINESASUBORDINATEEVENAPROBATIONARYONEFORHISORHERSPEECH,ASSOCIATIONS,RELIGIOUSDISPLAYSINTHEWORKPLACE,OROTHERCONSTITUTIONALLYPROTECTEDCONDUCT,ITRAISESC
8、ONSTITUTIONALISSUESTHATARECOMPLETELYALIENTOMANAGEMENTINTHEPRIVATESECTORPRIVATESECTOREMPLOYEESMIGHTLEARNCONSTITUTIONALLAWINORDERTOBEGOODCITIZENSPUBLICSERVANTSMUSTKNOWITTOBECOMPETENTEMPLOYEESACOROLLARYISTHATBECAUSECONSTITUTIONALLAWPLAYSAMAJORROLEINTHEPUBLICSERVICE,SODOTHEJUDGESWHOMAKETHATLAWACHIEVINGC
9、OMPETENCEINTHECONSTITUTIONALASPECTSOFPUBLICSERVICEREQUIRESATLEASTTWOTYPESOFSIGNIFICANTSTUDYANDEFFORTFIRST,ONEMUSTUNDERSTANDTHEBROADPRINCIPLESONWHICHCONSTITUTIONALLAWRESTSSECOND,ANDAMORECOMPREHENSIVECHALLENGE,ONEMUSTLEARNTHECONSTITUTIONALREQUIREMENTSTHATCURRENTLYGOVERNPUBLICSERVICEINTHEUNITEDSTATESPA
10、RTSONEANDTWOOFTHISBOOKPROVIDESTHEANALYSISANDINFORMATIONNECESSARYTOUNDERSTANDHOWCONSTITUTIONALLAWHASTOBEFACTOREDINTOTHEREASONABLEPUBLICSERVANTSJOBPERFORMANCETHEYEXPLAINTHEPOTENTIALLIABILITYOFPUBLICSERVANTSANDTHEIREMPLOYERSFORVIOLATINGINDIVIDUALSCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSANDWHATCONSTITUTIONALPROCEDURALDUEPR
11、OCESS,FREESPEECH,PRIVACY,ANDEQUALPROTECTIONREQUIREALTHOUGH“THECONSTITUTIONISLARGELYADOCUMENTOFTHEIMAGINATION”,GAININGANUNDERSTANDINGOFAFEWOFITSFUNDAMENTALPRINCIPLESGOESALONGWAYTOWARDMAKINGCONSTITUTIONALLAWRELATIVELYCONCRETEANDACCESSIBLETHESEPRINCIPLESAREESPECIALLYIMPORTANTINCURSIONSONCONSTITUTIONALR
12、IGHTSMUSTBENECESSARYANDBOUNDED,ANDTHECONSTITUTIONISALWAYSAWORKINPROGRESSPERSONALRESPONSIBILITYINTHEUNITEDSTATES,ALLPUBICSERVANTS,ELECTEDORAPPOINTED,ENTERTHEPUBLICSERVICEBYTAKINGANOATHTHATTHEYWILLUPHOLDTHECONSTITUTIONOFTHEUNITEDSTATESTAKINGANOATHISANACTOFCOMMITMENTTHECONSTITUTIONISORDAINED,ASDECLARES
13、THEPREAMBLE,“INORDERTOFORMAMOREPERFECTUNION,ESTABLISHJUSTICE,INSUREDOMESTICTRANQUILITY,PROVIDEFORTHECOMMONDEFENCE,PROMOTETHEGENERALWELFARE,ANDSECURETHEBLESSINGSOFLIBERTYTOOURSELVESANDOURPOSTERITY”INTHEBILLOFRIGHTSADOPTEDBYTHEFIRSTCONGRESSANDRATIFIEDLESSTHANTHREEYEARSLATERIN1791,THECONSTITUTIONCONTRA
14、CTUALLYGUARANTEESTOTHEPEOPLETHATWHILECARRYINGOUTTHESEUTILITARIANOBJECTIVES,THEGOVERNMENTWILLPROTECTTHEINALIENABLERIGHTSOFTHEPEOPLE,ENUMERATEDORNOT,WITHFUNDAMENTALFAIRNESSINTHELARGESENSE,THEOATHTAKINGISANACTOFMAKINGAMORALANDLEGALCOMMITMENTTHATTHEPUBLICSERVANTWILLCONDUCTPUBLICAFFAIRSINCONSTITUTIONALTE
15、RMSTHEBOTTOMLINEINANYGUARANTEEIS“DAMAGESORNOTHING”DURINGTHEFIRSTCONGRESS,THEBILLOFRIGHTSWASCONCEIVEDWITHAN“IMPLICIT”UNDERSTANDINGTHATTHEADMINISTRATIONOFGOVERNMENTALAFFAIRSMIGHTCAUSETHEDEPRIVATIONOFRIGHTSGUARANTEEDTOINDIVIDUALCITIZENS,ANDWHENSUCHTRANSGRESSIONSOCCUR,THEGOVERNMENTWOULDBERESPONSIBLEFORT
16、HEINJURIESINMARBURYVMADISON,CHIEFJUSTICEMARSHALLEXPRESSEDHISUNDERSTANDINGOFTHISCONTRACTUALRESPONSIBILITY,“THEVERYESSENCEOFCIVILLIBERTYCONSISTSINTHERIGHTOFEVERYINDIVIDUALTOCLAIMTHEPROTECTIONOFTHELAWS,WHENEVERHEORSHERECEIVESANINJURY”ITSHOULDBEMENTIONEDINHASTE,THOUGH,THATTHROUGHOUTTHEHISTORYOFTHEREPUBL
17、IC,INDIVIDUALSSEEKINGCONSTITUTIONALDAMAGESAGAINSTTHEGOVERNMENTANDPUBLICSERVANTSHAVEENCOUNTEREDANENORMOUSLYDIFFICULTLEGALBARRIERTHISWASDUE,INPART,TOTHECOMMONLAWDOCTRINEOFSOVEREIGNIMMUNITYANDINPARTTOTHEABSENCEOFSPECIFIC,ENABLINGLEGISLATIONFASTFORWARDING,COURTSTODAYRECOGNIZEANUNRESTRICTEDCAUSEOFACTIONF
18、ORDAMAGESAGAINSTLOCALGOVERNMENTALBODIESANDRESTRICTEDCAUSEOFACTIONAGAINSTFEDERALANDSTATEGOVERNMENTSCOURTS,HOWEVER,RECOGNIZEAFULLCAUSEOFACTIONAGAINSTALLPUBLICSERVANTSENGAGEDINEXECUTIVEFUNCTIONSPOSSIBLYWITHTHEEXCEPTIONOFTHEPRESIDENT,FEDERAL,STATE,ANDLOCAL,UNDERTHECONSTITUTIONANDSTATUTORYSCHEMESAREASONA
19、BLEPUBLICSERVANTTAKINGANOATH,THEREFORE,UNDERSTANDSTHATWHILETHECONSTITUTIONGRANTSTHEPOWERANDAUTHORITYTODISCHARGETHEOFFICIALDUTIESVIGOROUSLY,ITALSOHOLDSINDIVIDUALS“PERSONALLY”OR“OFFICIALLY”RESPONSIBLEFORTHECIVILDAMAGES,SHOULDTHEYARISEFROMTHETRANSGRESSIONOFOTHERSCONSTITUTIONALRIGHTSTHEDISTINCTIONBETWEE
20、NPERSONALANDOFFICIALACCOUNTABILITYISOFCRITICALIMPORTANCETOTHELIFEOFAREASONABLEPUBLICSERVANTWHOCARRIESOUTTHEDAYTODAYPUBLICAFFAIRSATTHESTREETLEVELOFFICIALACCOUNTABILITYAPPLIESWHENAPUBLICSERVANTHASCAUSEDTHEDEPRIVATIONOFACONSTITUTIONALRIGHTOFANINDIVIDUALWHILEACTINGASANAGENTOFTHEPRINCIPAL,THATIS,THEGOVER
21、NMENTUNDERTHEDOCTRINEOFRESPONDENTSUPERIORLIABILITY,THEAGENTSTORTISVICARIOUSLYIMPUTEDTOTHEPRINCIPALTHATHEREPRESENTSPERSONALACCOUNTABILITYCOMESINTOPLAYWHENAPUBLICSERVANTSTRAYSBEYONDTHESCOPEOFAUTHORIZEDDUTYTHATIS,OUTSIDETHEPRINCIPALAGENTCONTEXT,SUBSEQUENTLYCAUSINGTHEDEPRIVATIONOFOTHERSCONSTITUTIONALRIG
22、HTSSINCETHEALLEGEDMISCONDUCTHASOCCURREDOUTSIDETHESCOPEOFDUTY,THEDAMAGESMAYNOTBEVICARIOUSLYATTRIBUTEDTOTHEGOVERNMENTULTIMATELYTHETAXPAYERSBUTTOTHEPUBLICSERVANTHIMSELFUNLESSTHEPRINCIPALHASCONDUCEDTOTHEINJURYINSOMEWAYSINTHEREALWORLD,THELINEBETWEENPERSONALANDOFFICIALISOFTENBLURREDANDCONTESTEDINCOURTFORN
23、OWITISSUFFICIENTTOPOINTOUTTHATBYSTATUTORYLAWANDCOMMONLAWTRADITION,PERSONALANDOFFICIALACCOUNTABILITYAREOFDIFFERENTGENREANDREQUIREASEPARATEANALYSISOFFICIALRESPONSIBILITYCHAPTER2EXAMINEDTHECONSTITUTIONALSTANDARDOFCONDUCTEXPECTEDOFAREASONABLEPUBLICSERVANTINHISPERSONALCAPACITYTHISCHAPTEREXAMINESTHECONSTI
24、TUTIONALSTANDARDOFCONDUCTEXPECTEDOFAREASONABLEPUBLICSERVANTINHISOFFICIALCAPACITYTHEOFFICIALCAPACITYCONDUCTISTHECONDUCTEXPECTEDOFTHEPUBLICSERVANTASANAGENTORREPRESENTATIVEOFTHEPRINCIPAL,THATIS,THEGOVERNMENTTHEDISTINCTIONBETWEENPERSONALCAPACITYCONDUCTANDOFFICIALCAPACITYCONDUCTALTHOUGHNOTALWAYSEASYTOMAK
25、EISOFCENTRALIMPORTANCETOTHESTUDYOFLEGALACCOUNTABILITYASWEHAVESEENINCHAPTER2,THEPUBLICSERVANTHASNORIGHTTOMISUSEHISPOWERUNDERCOLOROFLAWINVIOLATIONOFTHECONSTITUTIONANDLAWTOTHEEXTENTTHATHEDOES,HEISONHISOWN,CANNOTEXPECTTAXPAYERSTOCOVERHISERRANTBEHAVIOR,ANDISPERSONALLYRESPONSIBLEFORWHATEVERTORTSHEHASCOMMI
26、TTEDFORTHEINTERESTOFTHEPUBLICSERVICEANDSELFPROTECTION,HOWEVER,THECOMMONLAWPRINCIPLEESTABLISHEDINHARLOWVFITZGERALDHASPROVIDEDTHEPUBLICSERVANTWITHTHERIGHTTOASSERTTHEDEFENSEOFQUALIFIEDIMMUNITYTHEOFFICIALCAPACITYCONDUCTISDIFFERENTITISTHEACTOFANAGENTREPRESENTINGTHEPRINCIPALTHEPUBLICSERVANT,ASANAGENT,CARR
27、IESOUTTHEOFFICIALEDICTOFTHEGOVERNMENTHEREPRESENTSTOTHEEXTENTTHATTHEEDICTHASCAUSEDACONSTITUTIONALTORT,THETORTIOUSCONDUCTWILLBEIMPUTEDTOTHEENTITYTHATISSUEDIT,ALTHOUGHUNDERSOMECIRCUMSTANCESTHEPUBLICSERVANTWHOIMPLEMENTEDITMAYALSOBEHELDLIABLEINKENTUCKYVGRAHAM,THESUPREMECOURTMADETHISDISTINCTIONSHARPLYINTH
28、ECONTEXTOFDAMAGESLAWSUITSPERSONALCAPACITYSUITSSEEKTOIMPOSEPERSONALLIABILITYUPONAGOVERNMENTOFFICIALFORACTIONSHETAKESUNDERCOLOROFSTATELAWOFFICIALCAPACITYSUITS,INCONTRAST,GENERALLYREPRESENTONLYANOTHERWAYOFPLEADINGANACTIONAGAINSTANENTITYOFWHICHANOFFICERISANAGENTASLONGASTHEGOVERNMENTENTITYRECEIVESNOTICEA
29、NDANOPPORTUNITYTORESPOND,ANOFFICIALCAPACITYSUITIS,INALLRESPECTSOTHERTHANNAME,TOBETREATEDASASUITAGAINSTTHEENTITYITISNOTASUITAGAINSTTHEOFFICIALPERSONALLY,FORTHEREALPARTYININTERESTISTHEENTITYTHUS,WHILEANAWARDOFDAMAGESAGAINSTANOFFICIALINHISPERSONALCAPACITYCANBEEXECUTEDONLYAGAINSTTHEOFFICIALSPERSONALASSE
30、TS,APLAINTIFFSEEKINGTORECOVERONADAMAGESJUDGMENTINANOFFICIALCAPACITYSUITMUSTLOOKTOTHEGOVERNMENTENTITYITSELFDISTINCTIONBETWEENOFFICIALCAPACITYANDPERSONALCAPACITYCONDUCTANEXAMINATIONOF1983LAWSUITSSHOWSTHATTHECOMPLAINANTSROUTINELYNAMEDEFENDANTOFFICIALSINTHEIRPERSONAL,ASWELLASOFFICIALCAPACITIESBYNAMINGPU
31、BLICSERVANTSINTHEIRPERSONAL,ASWELLASOFFICIALCAPACITY,COMPLAINANTSSEEKDAMAGESAGAINSTTHEIRDEFENDANTPUBLICSERVANTSNOTONLYINTHEIRPERSONALCAPACITYBUTALSOAGAINSTTHEMUNICIPALITYTHATTHEYREPRESENTCASELAWHASBEENESTABLISHEDTHATASUITAGAINSTAPUBLICSERVANTINHISOFFICIALCAPACITYISESSENTIALLYTHESAMEASASUITAGAINSTHIS
32、GOVERNMENTALEMPLOYEROFWHICHHEISANAGENTSINCEANOFFICIALCAPACITYSUITISNOTASUITAGAINSTTHEPERSONBUTAGAINSTTHEOFFICE,ONEMAYINHERITTHESUITFILEDAGAINSTHISPREDECESSOR,ANDALOCALGOVERNMENTALENTITYMAYNOTESCAPELIABILITYJUSTBECAUSETHETENANTINTHEOFFICEHASCHANGEDTHEDISTINCTIONBETWEENTHECONDUCTOFOFFICIALCAPACITYANDO
33、FPERSONALCAPACITYISATRICKYBUSINESSATTIMESHAFERVMELOPRESENTEDSUCHACHALLENGESEVERALFORMEREMPLOYEESINPENNSYLVANIASSTATEAUDITORSOFFICESUEDBARBARAHAFER,THENEWLYELECTEDSTATEAUDITOROFPENNSYLVANIE,INHERPERSONALCAPACITYUNDER1983FORTERMINATINGTHEIREMPLOYMENTINVIOLATIONOFTHEFOURTEENTHAMENDMENTUPONWINNINGTHEELE
34、CTION,HAFERFIREDTHEEMPLOYEESBECAUSE,ASSHECLAIMED,THEYHADPROCUREDTHEIREMPLOYMENTTHROUGHPOLITICALPATRONAGEITSHOULDBENOTEDTHATINWILLVMICHIGANDEPARTMENTOFSTATEPOLICE,THESUPREMECOURTHELDTHAT1983DOESNOTAPPLYTOSTATEOFFICIALSINTHEIROFFICIALCAPACITYBUTITAPPLIESTOTHEMINPERSONALCAPACITYTHECOURTWASMOREEXPLICITA
35、BOUTTHISPOINTINHAFER“THEELEVENTHAMENDMENTDOESNOTBARPERSONALCAPACITYSUITSUNDER1983AGAINSTSTATEOFFICIALSINFEDERALCOURT”THEEMPLOYEESSUEDHAFERINHERPERSONALCAPACITY,SEEKINGDAMAGESAGAINSTHER,NOTAGAINSTTHESTATEHAFER,ONTHEOTHERHAND,DEFENDEDHERACTION,ASSERTINGTHATHERDECISIONWAS“OFFICIAL”INNATUREANDTHEELEVENT
36、HAMENDMENTBARRED1983SUITSAGAINSTSTATEOFFICIALSINTHEIROFFICIALCAPACITYHAFERMADEANATTEMPT,WITHOUTSUCCESS,TODISTINGUISHBETWEENTHEACTSCOMMITTEDOUTSIDETHEOFFICIALSAUTHORITYANDTHOSEWITHINTHEOFFICIALSAUTHORITYTHATAREGERMANETOHEROFFICIALFUNCTIONSSHEARGUEDTHATONLYTHEFORMER“PERSONAL”ISSUBJECTTO1983LIABILITYIN
37、ANUNANIMOUSOPINIONWITHJUSTICETHOMASNOTPARTICIPATINGTHESUPREMECOURT,PERJUSTICEOCONNOR,OBSERVEDTHAT“CONGRESSENACTED1983TOENFORCEPROVISIONSOFTHEFOURTEENTHAMENDMENTAGAINSTTHOSEWHOCARRYABADGEOFAUTHORITYOFASTATEANDREPRESENTITINSOMECAPACITY,WHETHERTHEYACTINACCORDANCEWITHTHEIRAUTHORITYORMISUSEIT”,ANDDETERMI
38、NEDTHATHAFERSACTIONREPRESENTEDA“PERSONAL”ABUSEOFAUTHORITYUNDERCOLOROFSTATELAWTOELIMINATEANYLINGERINGAMBIGUITYBETWEENOFFICIALANDPERSONALCAPACITYSUITS,OCONNOREXPLAINED“THEPHRASEACTINGINTHEIROFFICIALCAPACITYISBESTUNDERSTOODASAREFERENCETOTHECAPACITYINWHICHTHESTATEOFFICERISSUED,NOTTHECAPACITYINWHICHTHEOF
39、FICERINFLICTSTHEALLEGEDINJURY”“STATEOFFICERSSUEDFORDAMAGESINTHEIROFFICIALCAPACITYARENOTPERSONSFORPURPOSESOFTHESUITBECAUSETHEYASSUMETHEIDENTITYOFTHEGOVERNMENTTHATEMPLOYSTHEM”BYCONTRAST,OFFICERSSUEDINTHEIRPERSONALCAPACITYCOMETOCOURTASINDIVIDUALSASWEDISCUSSEDINCHAPTER2,WHENTHEPUBLICSERVANTISSUEDINHISPE
40、RSONALCAPACITY,HEHASARIGHTTOASSERTTHEDEFENSEOFQUALIFIEDIMMUNITYWHENHEISSUEDINANOFFICIALCAPACITY,HOWEVER,HECANNOTASSERTTHEDEFENSEOFQUALIFIEDIMMUNITYASTHESUPREMECOURTINOWENVCITYOFINDEPENDENCEEXPLAINED,ADAMAGESCLAIMAGAINSTAPUBLICOFFICIALINTHEOFFICIALCAPACITYISESSENTIALLYTHECLAIMAGAINSTHISGOVERNMENTEMPL
41、OYERSINCEMONELLALREADYHELDTHATUNDER1983LOCALGOVERNMENTALBODIESENJOYNEITHERABSOLUTENORQUALIFIEDIMMUNITY,THECOURTWOULDBEINCONSISTENTIFITWERETOALLOWPUBLICSERVANTSTOASSERTTHEDEFENSEOFQUALIFIEDIMMUNITYINTHEIROFFICIALCAPACITYSOURCEYONGSLEE,DAVIDHROSENBLOOM2005AREASONABLEPUBLICSERVANTCONSTITUTIONALFOUNDATI
42、ONSOFADMINISTRATIVECONDUCTINTHEUNITEDSTATESMESHARPE,INCPP358译文一个合理的公务员在美国以宪法为基础的行政行为宪法和一个合理的公务员2004年11月，美国人事办公室安排了70个联邦行政人员参观了在费城宾夕法尼亚州独立广场的国家宪法中心。这些管理人员就好像处于一个管理避难所里。在参观专门为美国宪法设立的博物馆的过程中他们可以得到些什么宪法与公共管理又有什么关系呢美国人事办公室总监凯科尔斯詹姆斯给出了这样一个简短的答案对管理人员的访问是一个更为广大计划的其中一部分，它使联邦雇员坚持着“提高认识和尊重”的誓言。具体点的答案就是今天“一个有合理
43、能力的”公务员“应该知道控制他或她行为的法律”。该法的大部分是宪法性法律，即，法律由解释宪法语言的法官制定，并且将它们运用在个别案件中。同样地，州法官通过对州宪法进行解释和说明从而制定州宪法。今天，宪法全面规定着美国政府的公共服务。就像詹姆斯所认为的，公务员在进行决策或采取其它行为的时候应遵循宪法。对于公务员来说，理解宪法对他们的要求是一个基本工作能力的体现。这个从根本上将他们与私人领域管理分离开了，不论它是不是以利润为营利目的。宪法规定了公务员与客户、消费者、下属员工、囚犯、仅限于公共精神卫生设施的病患、承包商等的往来。与此相反，宪法并没有涉及到纯粹的私人关系和活动，除了1）禁止奴隶制和强迫
44、劳逸（第十三修订）2）限制了一类有限的私人实体的行为，这些实体被认为是为宪法目的而活动的国家（“政府”）人。当一个公共管理者惩戒一个下属甚至是一个见习者只因为他或她的演讲，所参加的协会，在工作场所的宗教行为显示或者其他宪法保护的行为，它会引起完全异于私人领域管理的宪法问题。私人领域的雇员可能为了成为好公民而学习宪法法律，公务员必须学习宪法法律从而成为一个好的雇员。一个自然的推论是，由于宪法法律在公共服务中起着重要的作用，所以制定法律的法官也有着同等的重要性。实现在宪法方面公共服务的竞争力至少需要两种类型的具有意义的研究和努力。首先，必须了解宪法法律所依据的广泛的原则。第二，必须了解更为全面的挑
45、战，就是必须学习目前管辖着美国政府公共服务的宪法规定。这本书的第一、二部分提供了分析和必要信息去了解宪法法律如何影响一个合理公务员的工作表现。他们解释了公务员及其雇主因违反个人宪法权利的潜在责任，也说明了宪法程序的正当进程，自由言论，隐私以及平等保护等所要求的。虽然“宪法在很大程度上是一个想象性的文件”，但是从获得一些其基本原则的了解到制定相对具体以及可行的宪法法律还有很长一段路要走。以下原则尤其重要一个是对宪法权利的侵犯必须是有必要的且有界的，另外，宪法始终是一个在进展中的工作。个人责任在美国，所有被选举的或者任命的公务员进入公共服务领域都要宣誓他们将维护美国的宪法。宣誓是一种作出承诺的行为
46、。宪法的制定就像宣布了序言“是为了建立一个更完善的国家，树立正义，保障国家安定，加强国防，增进全民福利以及确保自由带给我们以及我们后人的幸福。”1791过后不到三年，第一次代表大会通过的人权法案被批准了，它提到宪法契约性地向人民保证，当执行一些功利性的目标时，政府将会保护与人们密切相关的权利，不论可否点算，要符合基本的公平性。在很大意义上说，宣誓是在道德和法律上做出了承诺，公务员都要在宪法条款范围内进行公共事务的行为。任何保证的底线是“损害赔偿或全无”。在第一次代表大会上，人权法案是以“隐”的理解构思出来的，意味着政府事务的管理可能导致个人被确保权力的剥夺，而且当这种行为发生了，政府就要为其负
47、责。在马伯里诉麦迪逊案件中，终审法院首席法官马歇尔表达了他对这种合同责任的理解，“公民自由的一个大的本质在于每一个个人无论何时受到伤害都主张法律保护的权利。这个应当匆匆提一下，但是，纵观共和国历史，个人寻求的针对政府和公务员的宪法性损害赔偿已经遇到了一个非常困难的法律障碍。这一部分是由于主权豁免的普通法原则，也有一部分是由于一些具体的，授权的立法的缺失。快速回到今天，法院意识到一个针对当地政府机构无限制的损害赔偿行为的原因以及针对联邦和各州政府行为的有限制的损害赔偿行为的原因。然而，法院认识到针对所有从事于行政职能（可能总统的情况除外），联邦，州和地方，或者依据宪法及法定计划的公务员的损害赔偿
48、行为的一个完整的原因。因此，一个合理的公务员进行宣誓可以理解为宪法赋予他们权力和权威来积极履行公务，他们也拥有个人的民事赔偿责任，这样他们还会因为他人的宪法权利而产生违法行为吗个人问责制和官员问责制之间的区别对于在街道层面实施日常公共事务的一个合理的公务员的生活是至关重要的。官员问责制适用于当一个公务员扮演代理人，即政府的角色时，造成了个人宪法权利的剥夺。根据上级答辩责任原则，代理人的侵权行为可替代地归罪于他代表的当事人。个人问责制正值公务员迷途在授权范围之外而发挥了作用，也就是说，在委托代理范围之外引起的其他人宪法权利的剥夺。由于所谓的不正当行为已经在职责范围外发生了，损害赔偿也许不会替代性
49、地归因于政府（最终的纳税人），却归因于公务员自身，除非当事人已经通过某种方式对造成的伤害给予帮助。在现实世界里，个人与官方的界限往往是模糊的并且经常在法庭上被争议。现在看来足以指出，通过成文法和普通法的传统，个人及官员问责制是属于不同流派的，并且需要单独分析。官方责任第二章审查了一个合理的公务员在个人身份行为上应有的宪法标准。本章将探讨一个合理的公务员的官方身份行为应有的宪法标准。官方身份行为是公务员作为代理人或者主要代表的行为，即政府所期望的行为。个人身份行为与官方身份行为之间的区别（尽管不容易做出区分）对法律责任的研究至关重要。正如我们在第二章中所见的，在宪法和法律受到侵害时，公务员没有权利根据法律色彩滥用他的权力。在某种程度上，他从自身出发所做的事，他不能期望纳税人来掩藏他的错误行为并且他要对他所犯的侵权行为负个人责任。然而，对于公共服务和自我保护的利益，在哈洛诉杰拉德的案件中建立的普通法原则已经给公务员提供权利去主张有限制的豁免权的防御。官方身份行为是不一样的，它是代表当事人的代理人的行为。作为代理人，公务员进行了他所代表的政府官员的法令。该法令已经使得宪法受到侵害，在某种程度上，侵权行为将归咎于做出这种行为的实体，虽然在某些情况下，公务员也可能被追究法律责任。在肯塔基诉格雷厄姆的案件中，最高法院使这种区别在损害赔偿的
