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.
What an outstanding argument. See, folks, I told she'd run.
We all know that you think the President should open investigations on all the crimes the Clintons perpetrated, regardeless of whther they think they can get a conviction.
Clintons. Clintons. Clintons. See, folks, she's still obsessed with Clintons. Still wants you to focus on them and ignore ALL the others. And how can one make a SOUND decision about whether a conviction is possible without a investigation? Some one sure is SPINNNINNG.
And by the way, YES ... people do know where I stand. The question is do we really know where you stand. Do you believe Brown was murdered? Do you believe crimes were committed in Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate, the Riady Non-Refund? Do you think some of the people involved in those crimes are still active in government, the media or the democRAT party? Just what do you REALLY think?
Nevermind that we are at war, and the DOJ is needed for more urgent matters.
Like fighting against voter approved assisted suicide? Like fighting against voter approved medical marijuana? Like fighting against pornography? Like I said in another post, if you need more agents ... hire them, rather than spend BILLIONS on programs that only liberals are really applauding. Hiding behind the WOT does not explain why NOTHING was done to investigate these matters before 9/11. And isn't defending our system of government, our freedoms, our way of life just as important as defending lives and buildings? Afterall, throughout history we have SPENT LIVES and RESOURCES to defend those things. Then why let democRATS do more damage to our institutions of government and law than terrorists could EVER do?
Nevermind that this is a guaranteed loser of a case,
Focusing on Clinton again are we? What about the dozens of others that we already KNOW committed crimes and for which there is plenty of evidence in the public domain, even without an HONEST investigation by an HONEST DOJ, with which to convict them? Imagine how much evidence there would be AFTER an investigation by parties that weren't trying to protect the Clinton administration and DNC? Lots of those people would be convicted and if you don't believe that is possible, explain what happened in Whitewater. Or have you completely given up on our judicial system in which case what are we fighting the WOT to protect? That's one of the most important things distinguishing us from the terrorists and voices of tyranny throughout the world.
and that it will divide the country, in time of war.
You think it isn't divided now? Maybe you should open a paper or two ... or listen to what they say on ABC, NBC and the like. The problem is that democRATS are becoming emboldened again because they are beginning to think they've gotten away with all the crimes they committed during the Clinton years. So its back to business as usual. But look what happened when the Pardongate matter was starting to get looked at seriously as a possible criminal matter. The democRATS AND liberal media were falling all over themselves to distance themselves from the Clinton administration and, in some cases, even being a democRAT. But then Bush moved-on there too ... and learned another lesson regarding the GOP's inability or unwillingness to prosecute their criminal behavior.
Nevermind that the media would attack Bush and cause him to lose popularity, making him a one-term president, and guaranteeing us Hillary.
And they aren't doing that now? Why half the posts here on FreeRepublic, especially those that you and your friends start and frequent, are about perceived attacks on Bush by the media. Are we to let the media decide which crimes get investigated and prosecuted and which don't. If so, I can guarantee you that the next election will be stolen by the democRATS. You think you saw media bias the last election? Just wait till the next when democRATS KNOW they can commit ANY CRIME IN THE BOOK and the GOP won't do anything about it. What is coming the next election will make what happened in the uninvestigated, unprosecuted Riady Non-Refund case look like chicken feed.
You are wrong,
You haven't proven me wrong. All you've done is mouth some platitudes, some PERSONAL opinions and RUN from the facts in case after case in order to defend the indefensible.
you are obsessed,
With what our Constitution says a President is supposed to do vis a vis crime and laws (namely ENFORCE THEM)? With what our forefathers thought about enforcing laws at the WHIM of a ruler (read the Declaration of Independence)? If so then I PROUDLY stand convicted as charged.
But if you want to claim I'm more obsessed with the Clintons than YOU, I'll disagree by simply pointing out that I'm not the one who ignores all the other criminals to focus SOLELY on Clinton and HIS chances of conviction ... I'm not the one who shows up to make nasty remarks about Bill, Hillary and Chelsea's LOOKS at every opportunity. It is those who seem more than a little EAGER to ignore the many serious crimes that dozens, if not HUNDREDS, of democRATS committed during the Clinton administration who seem obsessed with him.
and I don't really have any use for your interminable paragraphs.
Nor, it seems, the facts and Constitution.
Amen!!!
Yup. And it would cut down on those pesky elections, as whoever was on top at the moment announced a "temporary" emergency.
Thanks, no word back yet from the poster who invited me to make the comments. I guess I won't hold my breath.
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."Now this is a real LAFF! How can the Florida AG defend the constitution when the Florida
That's what was screaming at me as I read it, too. Ashcroft gave them that pledge--and they still wouldn't take "yes" for an answer.'course those selfsame senators, were they running for AG of Florida, would be taking the same position as are the actual candidates for the Democrat nomination for Fla AG.
Even a private in the Army has an obligation to disobey illegal orders or face trial later for executing illegal orders. As you said, the "I was only following orders" defense doesn't work anymore.
Basedon that, it would seem inexcusaable for an AG to defend or execute anti-Constitutinal laws.
It never ceases to amaze me how many reverse the point of a thread like this.
If John Ashcroft were to only enforce the laws that he felt were constituitional, and ignore the others, - we wouldn't have to worry about all the gun laws that infringe the RKBA's?
then it opens the door for absolute idiots like janet reno to do the same. Sorry, she did ignore the constitution half the time, but you don't want A.G.'s always using their own interpretation.
Why not? Theorerically we would get justice half the time, right?
Limiting what a John Ashcroft can do, limits what a janet reno can do. They should enforce the laws that are passed. Not their own interpretations.
Nope, --- they should only enforce laws that are constitutional, in their opinion, just as they swore to do in their oath of office.
Those who enforce obviously unconstitutional law, - such as the 'assault weapons' ban, are violating that oath.
Good. Here appears to be another Freeper who agrees with my contention that Ashcroft should investigate and prosecute the many crimes committed by the Clinton administration the last 9 years. Those who don't want that to happen keep telling me I'm all alone. Guess they are wrong about that TOO.
Ashcroft must obey the law and it is not up to him to select which ones he thinks are constitutional or not. That was my point in quoting Bolt. The law is the law and it must apply to everyone, even the devil, as More says in "Man".
And another one who agrees with me. Hummmmm ... perhaps that is why Miss Marple and Arnefufkin appear to have RUN from this thread for safer waters ... they were outnumbered and none of their other "friends" wanted to lend them a hand.
"Each election is like an advance auction of stolen goods" - HL Mencken
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler
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.
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.
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.
80 posted by tpaine
Ok. But Bolt didn't say "constitutional law". He said the law. Period.
And I said "Example", period. - You're nitpicking, I hope.
Who determines what law is and is not constitutional?
Every individual that swears an oath to honor the constitution must make that decision, - many times on the spot, -- as in a soldier determining a lawful order.
I believe that our constitution gives that responsibilty to the Supreme Court.
You are wrong. It is your responsiblity, & mine too, and we have all been shirking that duty.
Ashcroft must obey the law and it is not up to him to select which ones he thinks are constitutional or not. That was my point in quoting Bolt. The law is the law and it must apply to everyone, even the devil, as More says in "Man".
Numerous USSC decisions, the UCMJ, The Nurenberg trials, & some of the framers of the constitution, have said that unconstitutional law is null & void.
Your interpretation of Bolt is flawed.
If the Judiciary and the Legislative branch don't like it, then they have remedies available, but they must use due process to remove the AG.
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.