[butterdezillion]

Is there a requirement that every case have oral arguments?

When did Berg present oral arguments? Donofrio? Wrotnowski? Kerchner?

When were those people allowed to present oral arguments? If they were not allowed to present oral arguments, then were their Constitutional rights violated?

Is it unconstitutional for their written arguments to have to be submitted to the court by the clerk of the court, since it is the clerk who actually physically “presented arguments to the court”?

The AG’s job in this context would basically be that of a clerk. Are clerks unconstitutional?

[TNTNT]

I assume you are asking about appellate cases. There is no requirement that every case have oral arguments. In fact, the majority of cases do NOT have oral arguments. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding oral arguments. Whether oral arguments are allowed in a case is governed by the rules of each court and the discretion of the justices.

The parties submit their Petitions and briefs to the court. The clerks are employees of the court performing ministerial duties for the court. The clerk does not ‘present argument’ to the court, since they are employees and under the direction of the court. The ‘argument’ is presented to the court when the specific document is filed with the court. It is the clerk's office which accepts the document on behalf of the court.

The AG’s office and it's duties are never basically that of a clerk. It's legal duties are to be the ADVOCATE for the state and officials and ensure ENFORCEMENT of the state's law's. If you testify in committee regarding your bill that the AG is basically just a clerk, I promise you that your bill will never make it out of committee. You must be very careful as to how you phrase your arguments.