Sue them? Did they sign a legally binding contract with terms guaranteeing the closure of Gitmo and a moratorium on domestic spying? Did this contract provide for immediate impeachment on breach of terms?
Sorry pal, but "promises" are worth the paper they're written on. It's simply your fault for being credulous. This game's been going on for hundreds of years.
"If you vote for me, I will <political promise here>" sounds like an oral contract to me, since it involves consideration in the form of a vote.
Oral contracts when done before witnesses may be enforceable in some jurisdictions, except when the type of contract in question explicitly requires a written counterpart, such as in the conveyance of property.
I'm curious if this could be solved at the federal level via checks and balances provided at the state level. i.e. could a State legislate that it is illegal for candidate for US federal office to make false campaign claims when in that state. e.g. Any promises conveyed in speech made by a US presidential candidate when campaigning in that state, would constitute a legally binding contract between that candidate and any constituent of that state that votes for that candidate if that candidate is successfully elected into office.
> I'm curious if this could be solved at the federal level via checks and balances provided at the state level. i.e. could a State legislate that it is illegal for candidate for US federal office to make false campaign claims when in that state.
No, states can't enforce laws which would penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties. This is pretty well established Constitutional jurisprudence.
Plus, I wasn't suggesting that we create laws that penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties. I was suggesting that we penalize US citizens for things done prior to them becoming federal officials. I wasn't suggesting that we prosecute them for how they do their job but prosecute them for false claims made to help them achieve that job. How they did their job would merely be used as evidence to support any claims made against them when they were ordinary US citizens. Their actions in office would be evidence to a crime, not the crime itself.
> Plus, I wasn't suggesting that we create laws that penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties.
You specifically proposed making them liable for breach of contract under state law if their official acts while in office did not comport with statements made prior to their election. Which is, exactly, punishing them for how they perform official duties.
> I wasn't suggesting that we prosecute them for how they do their job but prosecute them for false claims made to help them achieve that job.
If you abandoned your suggested contract model and instead wanted to make false campaign claims themselves actionable (rather than punishing for future actions that don't comport with campaign claims under a contract theory), I'm pretty sure that the First Amendment would be the problem -- the Constitutional bar for punishing acts of speech, particularly political speech, is very high, and there's almost no way that something trying to regulate based statements of the speakers future political intentions is ever going to meet it.
> Their actions in office would be evidence to a crime, not the crime itself.
Oh, and you want this to be a crime, now, not a civil offense (like breach of contract would be)? That makes it even less likely to be viable.
Given your understanding of law, how would you make it for an individual to make false claims during an election campaign (either in speech or in writing) and hold them accountable for actually carrying out the promises and claims they made publicly.
Sorry pal, but "promises" are worth the paper they're written on. It's simply your fault for being credulous. This game's been going on for hundreds of years.