[dayglored]

> Without the arrest, there has been no deprivation, so he would lack any legal standing to challenge it.

IANAL, but I think you're right. And as a private citizen doing civil disobedience, that's exactly the way to go.

Nevertheless, my concern was that as a politician, running for State office, carrying around an arrest record for breaking state law seems sorta undesirable. Voters often don't pick up on the fine points of civil disobedience theory -- they just see that he broke the law and was arrested.

[MamaTexan]

Nevertheless, my concern was that as a politician, running for State office, carrying around an arrest record for breaking state law seems sorta undesirable.

While I can certainly see your point, I'm not sure if the arrest would be a serious enough infraction to be placed on his record.

------

Voters often don't pick up on the fine points of civil disobedience theory -- they just see that he broke the law and was arrested.

The average voter doesn't understand the way the law works, anyway. It's downright frightening the way most people immediately and mindlessly comply with every mandate spewed by government. (shudder)

-----------

Personally, I'd vote for someone who had the gumption to take a stand against the nanny state before I would some limp-wristed politico who spends their time subverting the Constitution.........

but I guess I'm just ornery that way!

:-)

[SUSSA]

a politician, running for State office, carrying around an arrest record for breaking state law seems sorta undesirable.

###

John Hancock was a smuggler. That didn't hurt his political career. General Thomas Gage ordered Hancock and Adams arrested for treason. They escaped but the arrest order remained in effect until the colonies won their independence. Still Mr. Hancock served in numerous elected positions, including President of the United States in Congress Assembled.