[tpaine]

Nope, not ridiculous at all. -- Example: --

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.

[MozarkDawg]

Certainly, he would then have been impeached....

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.

[KC Burke]

I agree with you that a jury, as part of the Judicial process and branch, can, and should consider jury nullification as a proper act in extreme cases. If they were twelve people serving on an Executive branch committee, board or regulatory body and the issue was settled by properly adopted Law they would then, however, be violating their oath of office.

[FreeTally]

-- Certainly, he would then have been impeached,

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?