Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: tired_old_conservative; AmericanVictory; David

Do the lawyers among us see any problem with the AG being given the “role of defending both the candidate and the public interest as stated by the Constitution”?

Would there be any reason a state AG would balk at having his/her job pretty much defined as initiating the suit, collecting and presenting to the court the amicus briefs (including one of his/her own if so desired) and the evidence, and conducting and presenting evidence in the event that the integrity of any of the records could be compromised, as indicated by the transaction logs?

Is there anything that would prohibit a law from designating the duties of the AG in these matters?

Would there be any problem with the AG not being given the job of conducting all kinds of procedural motions, but just with simply presenting the evidence and arguments and letting the court decide the case? I suppose the candidate could file his/her own suit and do the legal tap-dancing but that wouldn’t stop this suit which is based only on evidence and arguments.

If the AG’s role is as described, would the costs to the state for implementing this be less?


43 posted on 01/07/2011 11:51:32 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: butterdezillion

Should have been “conducting AN INVESTIGATION and presenting evidence in the event that the integrity of any records could be compromised, as indicated by the transaction logs.”


45 posted on 01/07/2011 11:58:23 AM PST by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion

On a separate track, do you think that an elector, once chosen, would have standing to compel document production?


48 posted on 01/07/2011 12:03:49 PM PST by Jim Noble (Third Bank of the United States: Ever wonder why they didn't call it that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion

As I set out in a mail to you, the Constitution empowers state legislatures to prescribe the manner in which electors are chosen so that a state legislature can prescribe that electors must swear an oath to uphold the Constitution including assuring that candidates meet constitutional requirements and the manner in which they can obtain the assurances that the candidate does in fact meet the qualifications.


52 posted on 01/07/2011 3:03:37 PM PST by AmericanVictory (Should we be more like them or they more like we used to be?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: butterdezillion
Do the lawyers among us see any problem with the AG being given the “role of defending both the candidate and the public interest as stated by the Constitution”?

Traditionally The Federal AG would, in a way, "recuse" himself, because he is the President's lawyer. In the practical sense, that is why the Federal District Court names another to defend the "public interest" in a case where the President is a defendant.

89 posted on 01/10/2011 7:49:08 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (A pity Pinochet is still dead. He would have been ideal for 2012 ... or sooner.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson