Should The Attorney General Enforce Laws He Thinks Are Unconstitutional?(My Title)

Whether the attorney general should defend laws he thinks are unconstitutional and how involved he should be in ensuring the independence of the judiciary were top issues Tuesday night in a debate among candidates for Florida's top legal post.

More than 200 people - mostly attorneys - turned out to hear the debate among four of the six candidates for attorney general sponsored by the Tallahassee Bar Association and the Capital City Bar Presidents' Council.

The office is left wide open by the pending retirement of term-limited Bob Butterworth, the Democrat who's held that position for 16 years. Butterworth is the only Democrat on the Cabinet, and Democrats are passionate about keeping the post in the party. All three Democratic candidates showed up for the debate: Buddy Dyer, D-Orlando, Tallahassee Mayor Scott Maddox and Deputy Attorney General George Sheldon.

Two of the Republicans - Education Commissioner Charlie Crist, the apparent front-runner, and Sen. Locke Burt, R-Ormond Beach - pleaded scheduling conflicts and did not attend. Republican Tom Warner, a former lawmaker and now the state solicitor general, held the banner for his party.

"My name is Tom Warner, and apparently I'm the only Republican candidate for attorney general," Warner quipped in his introduction.

Warner found himself frequently at odds with his Democratic opponents, especially when it came to whether the attorney general should defend laws he thinks are unconstitutional. Sheldon and Dyer were strong advocates for the attorney general defending the constitution first and the Legislature second.

"The specter of the attorney general of this state deciding which law they like and which laws they don't like - that's something we can't have in this state," Warner said. "If the attorney general can't defend the law, the attorney general has to step down."

Sheldon pointed out that Butterworth has declined to defend the state against issues he thinks are unconstitutional - the "Choose Life" license plate is an example - but also has defended the state on other issues that he personally may not have agreed with.

"It is not an issue as to whether the attorney general likes or doesn't like the law," Sheldon said. "If a law on its face is legally unconstitutional, the attorney general of Florida is sworn to defend the constitution."

Maddox summed up the dilemma this way: "I think the bigger question is whether or not we have an independent judiciary. ... As long as we have a strong, independent judiciary in this state, the constitution will be defended, and that's where the real battle lies."

Dyer agreed, saying "there is absolutely nothing more fundamental to an independent judiciary." He also said the judicial branch had been under attack by the Legislature over the past few years.

"I think the attorney general is the highest elected legal official and has a responsibility to be an advocate," Dyer said.

The candidates also fielded questions about the civil rights of victims, the 2000 presidential election, whether they would keep the current staff in the Attorney General's Office and what their first target might be for investigation.

Contact Capitol Bureau Chief Nancy Cook Lauer at (850) 222-6729 or nlauer@taldem.com.

Your interpretation of Bolt is flawed.

Well, I am a human and by definition, flawed. I just don't think you understand my use of the quote. It is, I believe, an affirmation of the rule of law. Do you believe in the rule of law tapaine? I.e., do you believe that man should be ruled by law or his instincts? I believe that man must be ruled by law or we are no more than wild animals. Their "turf" is what's important to an animal. Protect it at all costs. The Rule of Law, on the other hand crosses over "turf" boundries and separates us from the animals. IMHO.

It is quite another to come to the closure you devoutly wish, as indeed do most Freepers.

But you will never get there if you are not even willing to INVESTIGATE the matters. I realize that in some or many cases there won't be enough evidence to take it to trial ... but we will still learn the names of some people who acted like criminals that we currently don't know about. And in many cases, we will have enough evidence. The Riady Non-Refund is a good example. Clearly in that case SOMEONE broke the law and should be punished and BY LAW there must be a paper trail that would tell us WHO. Yet the Bush administration isn't even bothering to investigate. I find that deeply troubling because it suggests there is more going on here than meets the eye ... it suggests COLLUSION between the Republicans and the democRATS.

In a time when a Hillary Clinton can actually be elected senator, from any state whatsoever, and Al Gore can win the nationwide popular vote siccing the law on the Clintonistas would be exactly analogous to kicking a tar baby.

Only your opinion. My opinion is that it would be the nail in the coffin of Hillary and Gore's chances of reelection to ANY office ANYWHERE. Of course, if you are suggesting that some of the dirt on the democRATS might stick to Republicans, you might be right. There has to be SOME reason why Lott was so eager to dispose of the impeachment "garbage". I'd like to know what is is, wouldn't you?

In a better country no one would be caught dead voting for such riffraff, but until we are a lot closer to that ideal the prosecution of such politically potent people is a fool's errand.

Fine ... but what stops us from at least COMPLAINING to the people that we are going to vote for about this? At least then they would know what we really think, rather than thinking that we don't care if they ignore crimes. That message just might end up leading them to commit and coverup their own crimes ... if they thought it would improve their chances of staying in office and keeping their nice cushy jobs. We get the government we deserve.

if you are suggesting that some of the dirt on the democRATS might stick to Republicans, you might be right. There has to be SOME reason why Lott was so eager to dispose of the impeachment "garbage". I'd like to know what is is, wouldn't you?

No, I don't think that so much as that going after "Monicagate" obviously backfired because American culture now tolerates that behavior. We're not required to like it, we're only required to accept reality.
Now if you are for changing that reality, I submit that your target is broadcast journalism. Broadcasting amplifies the influence of journalism, and broadcasting needs journalism to justify its own existence.
Broadcasting needs to justify its existence for the simple reason that it only exists by grace of the FCC and would face catastrophic results if the FCC went out of business. And in fact what the FCC does is to censor all but a select few who have licenses; anyone not wearing blinders would see that to be a violation of the First Amendment.
So we have the spectacle of assiduous immitation of the print press, and especially of the NY Times, by broadcast journalism. The con is that if they all agree then none of them must be "biased." That suppresses the truth in favor of herd journalism.

There is also no provision for the Attorney General to decide which laws he will enforce and which he will not. Congress wrote 'em, president signed 'em ... if the AG don't like them, he, like any other citizen, must then do his best to get them overturned. If the AG may arbitrarily decide which laws are or are not unconstitutional, which ones he feels he should enforce, which ones he should not, then any citizen may also decide arbitrarily which laws are or are not unconstitutional, which ones he should obey and which ones he should not. That's not how the system works.

I beg to differ. Others have noted the idea of seperation of powers, but it seems the obvious has been neglected: the Constitution specifically grants the Chief Executive the right to pardon. The AG serves at the Chief Executive's pleasure, so he obviously cannot institute a 'no prosecute' policy without it being approved of by his superior. The executive branch does indeed have the explicit power to give the legislative branch the finger over any law they choose and refuse to enforce it. 'Checks and balances', after all, is not a banking phrase.

To suggest that the executive branch is _compelled_ to enforce all laws is to ignore the power of pardon, and futhermore, it is to make the executive branch superfluous: such would have the effect of all laws written by congress being automatically enforced, i.e. with the executive branch as a subsidiary of the legislative. Clearly, if the framers had intended this to be the case, there would exist only the Legislative and Judicial branches of government. The executive branch is not compelled to enforce laws that it believes are wrong. The Legislative branch can impeach, but it cannot compel the executive branch to do anything.

Note, however, that it may not be in the best ineterests of an AG to ignore the unconstitutional law, at any rate. He might well be serving the Constitution better by getting the matter before the Supreme Court and having it declared unconstitutional. If disaster occurs, and the court rules differently, again, there is nothing that prevents the executive branch from pardoning the offender.

It _does_ work that way.

Thraka

There has to be SOME reason why Lott was so eager to dispose of the impeachment "garbage". I'd like to know what is is, wouldn't you?

No, I don't think that so much as that going after "Monicagate" obviously backfired because American culture now tolerates that behavior. We're not required to like it, we're only required to accept reality.

I can't believe I have to say this on FR - it wasn't about sex!!!! The evidence in the Ford building changed the minds of 40 or so Republicans in the House that were iffy about impeachment. Schippers has stated they had all kinds of stuff they weren't allowed to present - things that would have swayed the public the way they did the people in congress who bothered to look.

I don't know of any other plausible reasons not to release that evidence other than the GOP will have some serious dirt released on its key members as well. Mutual Assured Destruction works so very well.

American culture now tolerates that behavior. We're not required to like it, we're only required to accept reality.

The evidence in the Ford building changed the minds of 40 or so Republicans in the House that were iffy about impeachment . . . [but] it wasn't about sex!!!!

Which is it? In fact, American culture tolerated despicable behavior by an American president, in court. x42 ought to have refused to enter that courtroom, or else he should have settled out of court. He did neither, but went into court and pettifogged. His behavior was unworthy of an American president and, in times past, deserving of impeachment and conviction. In times past--but evidently not today.
'course that is true only of a Democratic president; make no mistake, the old rules still apply to any Republican.

Schippers has stated they had all kinds of stuff they weren't allowed to present - things that would have swayed the public the way they did the people in congress who bothered to look.

The Senate Republicans made the calculation that their votes would not convict--true--and that the Democrats were unwilling to convict--also true. Their conclusion was that trial was not worth their effort, and they didn't seriously attempt it. I wish that they had not been correct in their judgement that Democrats would pay no price for that, but obviously they were correct.
As I say, I hold journalism--a branch of the Democratic party--responsible. Print journalism is almost absolutely immune, as part of the Press under the First Amendment.
But broadcast journalism has no First Amendment protection; the FCC could just take away the licenses of anyone it wanted to. The licensees do not have First Amendment protection, because you and I don't have First Amendment protection. If you think you do have First Amendment protection, why don't you broadcast? Why do you need a license to do something that the First Amendment gives you a right to do?

The Senate Republicans made the calculation that their votes would not convict

The Senate Republicans made the decision to bury the evidence in the Ford building which, according to Schippers, would have sunk Clinton and a whole slew of Dems. Instead, just as at the end of 95, when the GOP caved over the shut down of the government, they sent the clear signal that when push comes to shove, the Dems will win.

Either we have compromised individuals calling the shots or we have spineless incompetents who cannot handle the media. Either way, some fresh blood is needed or we will always be battling the Dems on their terms.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.