Posted on 06/05/2002 7:07:42 AM PDT by FreeTally
Candidates divided on defense of laws
By Nancy Cook Lauer
DEMOCRAT CAPITOL BUREAU CHIEF
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."
(Note: Typical Scot Maddox not addressing the issue)
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.
Or recuse himself from that case. The point is, that the AG is the Government's lawyer, and he has a duty under legal ethics to be a vigorous advocate for this client. How that duty squares with the oath of office is a difficult question. The AG should be consulted or he should unilaterally offer his opinion on the constituitionality of proposed laws and executive regulations. Once those have been enacted, however, his duty to his client kicks in, IMHO.
It's up to the judiciary to decide whether laws are constitutional.
I completely agree here, and, as an added sop to the jury nullifiers around, I'll note that citizen jurors are part of the judiciary.
There is a very good reason that they so narrowly defined treason--a definition as broad as you desire could turn politics into wave after wave of purges as each side gets into office and starts gunning for the former officeholders.
You call that engaging in a debate? Looks more like RUNNING from the facts to me ... dreaming up EXCUSES for Ashcroft NOT doing EXACTLY what ArneFufkin, himself, said an AG is supposed to do. Remember? He wrote that the AG's "job is to enforce existing law." Well do YOU think the Clinton's and their minions broke laws or not? Apparently NOT and that should give everyone pause about anything else you have to say.
He is fixated on dragging the Clintons before the courts, especially over Ron Brown, and any logical argument about why this is not being done falls on deaf ears.
I'm not half as fixated on Bill Clinton as you are Miss Marple. You are obviously obsessed with the man because you NEVER mention or will discuss the dozens if not hundreds of other democRATS that were knowingly involved in the Clinton era crimes and who are STILL in positions of influence ... in Bush's administration, the democRAT party, the media ... STILL doing damage and waiting to STEAL future elections like they almost did the last.
You WANT US to focus solely on Bill Clinton, Miss Marple. You'd rather we not even investigate these matters so that those many other criminal conspirators can continue their dirty work. You'd rather we not even investigate and find out the names of everyone who was involved ... names that I'm sure would include some still working in the Bush administration. You want everyone to think that the investigations and prosecutions would start with Clinton when in fact dozens of others would be investigated and convicted before Clinton had even a chance of becoming a target of prosecution. Why is that? Why are you using Clinton's name to keep the focus off those others, Miss Marple?
And since YOU bring up the name Ron Brown, why don't you tell us why ALL the people that seem to think like you (i.e, that Bush should ignore ALL the crimes the democRATS committed the last nine years ... even if they involved murder) REFUSE to discuss the facts surrounding his death? One of those people even claims that Brown wasn't murdered but won't say why. In fact, one of them even claims that such matters as Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate and the Riady Non-Refund were all about "nothing". Yet you consistently step in to defend that person and her positions. Yet, you want us to believe you are a died-in-the-wool conservative.
Just why are YOU and your friends afraid to discuss the circumstances in the Brown case? Because there is no statute of limitations on that crime? Because it can't be spun since its about murder and mass murder, not sex? Because the proof that a murder occurred is a simple exhumation and autopsy away? Because MILITARY officers were the whistleblowers in the case and therefore difficult to smear and discredit? Because it is easily shown that AFIP managers LIED about the facts in the case and the opinions of their pathologists? Because many, many other facts point to foul play? Because neither you or the government can explain the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash site? Because you can't explain what the surviving photo of the head x-ray shows or how the originals of the x-rays and photos all came to disappear from a locked safe at AFIP? Because you are afraid that a little digging might uncover a "suicide" (of the mechanic in charge of the missing beacon that could have been used to make the plane fly into the ground as it did) that was not a "suicide"? And I can go on but why waste the effort. I know that this time like ALL the times before you will RUN.
He has already placed you on the dreaded list of "Move-on types" and discounted your opinion. Howlin and I are on the list, you know.
Yes. Howlin ... who claimed that Brown wasn't shot but won't say why (other than to cite a very liberal democRATS belief, a demonstrably bogus government report, Ken Starr who had nothing to say about the case, and unnamed "others). And here you are defending her again.
Yes. Howlin ... who said that all those scandals I mentioned were "about nothing" and IMPLIED that Tripp and all the others who testified under oath in those matters might be lying. And here you are defending her once again.
And YES ... both of you do insist that the AG move on even if crimes were committed. That was the question being discussed in this thread you know.
Forget the Clintons. Human lives - yours, mine, our family and friends - are at stake. Today. The killers are here ... they're waiting for time, weapon and opportunity. We NEED Ashcroft and everyone in his outfit to find these murderous bastards first.
Get your head on straight. FR is becoming one big rubber room.
You can't name ONE source to show investigations are going one. NOT ONE. You also can't name ONE past investigation that was even a 1/10 of the size this one SHOULD be, 1/10 as POLITICAL as the targets of this investigation would try to make it, 1/10 as interesting to reporters as this one would be, that was not known about LONG before the indictments came down. So yes ... I do have a clue.
For the AG, it's a lot simpler; as an adviser to the President, if he doesn't feel he can serve both his President and the Constitution, he can resign. Moral quandry avoided, but that unfortunately does nothing to resolve the legal one.
Nevermind that we are at war, and the DOJ is needed for more urgent matters.
Nevermind that this is a guaranteed loser of a case, and that it will divide the country, in time of war.
Nevermind that the media would attack Bush and cause him to lose popularity, making him a one-term president, and guaranteeing us Hillary.
You are wrong, you are obsessed, and I don't really have any use for your interminable paragraphs.
Go pound sand.
OK, I'll tell them if they are reading this.
I say to you people who have lost loved ones in the cowardly attack on our citizens; never let the lives that were taken from your loved ones be in vain. The people who did this foul act wanted to take your freedoms away. They want you to come back to their level. They wanted to change your lives for the worse. They are delighted when our constitution is trashed and our freedoms are taken away. They love it when your forth amendment rights are trashed. Don't let them win, fight back. If we lose our rights and our constitution becomes meaningless, they have won even if we kill every last stinking one of them.
Cherish what our country truly is, not a place, or a group of people, but a set of principles and rules that our government must follow. It is what makes us great. When the constitution is ignored and our freedoms taken away, we become just one more country in the rest of the pitiful world. No different or better.
God bless you for making your loved ones lives sacred by being true Americans. I pray you will find some peace in your hearts for your lost family and friends.
When some Bin Laden exchange student is slowly disembowling you, tell him he's violating your fourth amendment right to personal privacy. He'll appreciate your input, and probably have a better feeling about the philisophical beauty of America while he cleans your innards off his knife.
It's hard to ascertain what point you are making with this Jr. High rhetoric. Are you saying that we should abandon the constitution every time someone attacks us? Just curious.
No, it's more like get your head out of your arse. This is serious business, and you dime store philosophers are useless and annoying.
Why are you so content with using the WOT as an excuse for the AG not doing the job you SAID earlier he was supposed to do? You want us to believe that out of the tens of thousands of agents, a hundred or so can't be spared to at least BEGIN investigations of crimes as serious as election tampering, conspiracy to blackmail congress, treason and murder? And we are still waiting for the EXCUSE why this wasn't started in the 8 months BEFORE 9/11. And I take it that since this war is going to go on and on for a long time, you'll be content if these matters NEVER get investigated. As far as I'm concerned, it is rather lame to use the WOT as an excuse for allowing a political party and its members to get away with such serious crimes ... crimes that threaten our very system of government (which, by the way, is ultimately what the terrorists fear more than people or buildings in this country).
And if not having enough investigators is the problem, then the DOJ should hire more ... instead of the Bush administration spending MORE BILLIONS on liberal agenda items like it is currently doing. After all, this is a WAR ... a war against our way of life, our system of government and our freedoms. As I said ... your tactic is clearly delay delay delay using any EXCUSE you can dream up.
Forget the Clintons.
Notice folks ... another one that just wants you to focus on "the Clintons" ... who won't say one word about the dozens if not hundreds of other democRATS who WILLFULLY violated the law during the Clinton years. Why are these people who suggest we ignore the crimes committed by dozens or hundreds of people during the Clinton years so OBSESSED with ONLY Clinton? They appear to be as obsessed as democRATS. Hummmmm.
Human lives - yours, mine, our family and friends - are at stake. Today. The killers are here ... they're waiting for time, weapon and opportunity.
And they weren't in the months immediately after 9/11 when the DOJ and FBI spent resources fighting voter approved assisted suicide and voter approved medical marijuana? I bet a little investigation would turn up dozens of activities the DOJ and FBI are CURRENTLY involved in that have nothing to do with the WOT and are a lot less serious than the crimes allegedly committed by the democRATS the last 9 years. In fact, if what is being said about CLinton administration's involvement in helping the terrorists is true, then it is imperative we investigate these matters and get these criminals out of positions where they might do us harm or be blackmailed into doing us harm. So what's your EXCUSE going to be now?
It's always easier to call people names than to clarify your muddled point. And I'm sure you are annoyed when you are called on your statements and have to explain them.
Oh ... so NOW, instead of addressing the facts, you are going to hide behind YOUR PERCEPTION of Larry Klayman. I think you people are almost as obsessed with him as you are Clinton. And it appears that you are trying to discredit me by linking me to Klayman. What's the problem ... can't find even ONE source that suggests the Clinton-era crimes were or are being investigated and so you need another diversion?
Furthermore, unlike the AG whose job YOU SAID it was to ENFORCE the laws, Klayman actually has successfully exposed some of the criminal matters that we all CLAIM we think the Clinton administration and DNC were involved in. So all you've done is demonstrate that if even a tiny outfit with very limited powers could discover and expose many serious Clinton era crime activities, a hundred or so DOJ and FBI agents, with the full investigatory powers of the Federal government behind them, could do a great job. I'm sure they'd get to the bottom of the Clinton-era crimes and rout out all those potential threats to national security that are still lurking in our government and military in no time at all. So why don't you want that to happen?
A Man For All Seasons, Robert Bolt
Ashcroft must obey the law, even the ones he does not like. Period.
Ashcroft must obey the law, even the ones he does not like. Period.
You've stood Bolts point on its head. - Reversed it.
-- He, - More, -- was arguing FOR the basic principles of law, not against them. Example:
'I'd give the devil benefit of constitutional law, for my own safety's sake.'
Ashcroft must obey the constitution, even the parts he does not like. -- And, - he must NOT support laws that violate it. - Period.
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.