Posted on 06/05/2002 7:07:42 AM PDT by FreeTally
It is part of your responsibility when you're on jury duty to do precisely that.
I think Janet Reno subscribed to this theory of AG-ship. And we all know what a swell job she did.
FWIW, the AG is the legal agent of the Executive branch -- the job of which is to faithfully execute the laws and responsibilities of government. To do otherwise would result in what you said -- by picking and choosing, AG would usurp the powers of the legislative branch.
CA passed a 'law' last year that prohibits possession of certain semiautomatic weapons. -- It definitely violates the 2nd, imo.
-- At that point, the AG of CA should have cited his oath of office, and announced that he would not prosecute this, [in HIS opinion], unconstitutional 'law'.
-- Certainly, he would then have been impeached, -- but as a honorable man. -- And could probably run for & won the CA governorship on that record.
Well freepers, what do you think??He's the state's attorney. It's his job. It's much like a lawyer defending a client he suspects (or knows) is guilty.
-Eric
Is that part of the instruction given at the end of a trial? The judge tells you, "Oh, by the way, if you think that this law they've charged the defendant with violating is really not kosher, according to your interpretation of the Constitution, then by all means, acquit."
If that is the case, there would never have been any 12-0 decisions from a jury who must make a unanimous judgement, those jurors all having an individual interpretation of the law. When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. found the law of the land to be in violation of his idea of just and right, he broke it and took the punishment. He was justified in his thoughts, but full well knew the consequences of his actions, why it was called civil DISobedience. His sacrifice ended up in getting the law changed by Constitutional method, not by having the law ignored.
---------------------------------
There's a catch 22 though. -- If you tell that to the judge, he throws you off the jury.
Section 5(b), Art. II, State Const., provides as follows:The AG office in this state and elsewhere is an office of the Executive Branch and the chief Executive duty is to impartially and faithfully "execute" the law. Execute then means to investigate, charge and prosecute. It does not mean to Ajudicate or Judge. That is the duty of another branch, the judiciary. In judging, the applicability, the analysis of the properly (constitutionally) formed law and all issues of fact and law come into play.Each state and county officer, before entering upon the duties of the office, shall give bond as required by law, and shall swear or affirm:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of (title of office) on which I am now about to enter. So help me God.", and thereafter shall devote personal attention to the duties of the office, and continue in office until his successor qualifies. (e.s.)
The specter of the legitamacy of public funcionaries of all political stripe and ability, decieding on their personal whim what they wish to do, is the very reason for a sworn oath of office!
The American political system is nothing if not freedom from Arbitrary Power and what is more arbitrary than willful non-application of duty? The defense of the constitution of state or federal nature begins with the understanding of duties under the document, divisions of powers and such defense doesn't promote each office holder to a post of reinventing government based upon his sill, reason and personal opinion.
The tone of the arguments here has been that there is no penalty for an AG not to enforce laws that are on the books. No mention of an appointed official declaring that he be willing to suffer the loss of his job by not enforcing all the laws passed.
The argument I find ridiculous is that some folks think it's okee-dokee for ONE appointed official to decide just what HE thinks proper and what is not proper.
Someone wants to FINALLY stand up and publicly declare that all these gun laws are completely wrong on their face, that abortion is not some *private* act, etc., etc., etc., and is willing to lose his job over a just and right cause? Be my guest, Mr. AG, I'm right there with ya.
No offense, but the reason you believe that is because you have been lied to. Every person has the common law right to judge not only guilt or innocence, but the fairness of the law. Courts try to hide this fact from all these days.
Precisely why she should have been impeached. When GOP Hatch had the chance to move, he did nothing but call her "his good friend," the House would never move Articles on her after that big signal. She was allowed to tromp on the Constitutional rights of so many citizens, but the rest of their fellow citizens sat by, did nothing, *too busy* and all that.
The first time the citizenry allowed a violation of the USCon and were appeased with a "We know what's best for you," was the first day this started on the slippery slope we now find ourselves on ... not good.
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
What do you think is the reason that Bob Butterworth was not impeached for refusing to do his duty and defend the "Choose Life" license plate against private suits? The issue was not even brought up. Do to few people care? Would it simply be horrible tactics for the Republicans? Would it be much difference in the instance of not enforcing un laws, or not defending the State in a private challenge of a gun law?
Is that part of the instruction given at the end of a trial? The judge tells you, "Oh, by the way, if you think that this law they've charged the defendant with violating is really not kosher, according to your interpretation of the Constitution, then by all means, acquit."
=================================
You are a prosecutors dream. -- And an innocent mans nightmare.
-- Jury nullification is our last ditch defense, our last check & balance against a legal system gone wild. -- Thats exactly why the system has tried so hard to suppress it, and to propogandize the public to believe like you.
Ashcroft ... are you listening? When are you going to investigate the crimes committed by the democRATS the last 9 years?
I believe even a jailer has, within some limits, the power to release as they see fit. Not a guard but rather the civil magistrate who administers the jail, such as a Sheriff etc.
I believe you are quite correct in your separation of powers argument.
Does that Ashcroft's job description too? Then why hasn't he investigated the many crimes the democRATS committed the last 9 years?
As just ONE example, why hasn't he lifted a finger to enforce the law were the Riady Non-Refund is concerned?
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.