marshaul
Campaign Veteran
^ ^ Shoot your friends often? ^ ^ We seek the same end.
It would seem not.
^ ^ Shoot your friends often? ^ ^ We seek the same end.
Under Virginia law, the Attorney General has an obligation to defend the Constitution of Virginia. He also is required to represent Virginia when the state’s position is in conflict with the Federal government. Attorney General Herring’s action today is in violation of both of these rules.
During his campaign for Attorney General, Mr. Herring bitterly campaigned against the record of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, complaining that he often made legal decisions based on his political views, and not the law. This action by Attorney General Herring is the exact same conduct of which he complained.
I believe it is an easier position to disapprove the actions of a Virginia agency and to withdraw from representation when he believes the agency is wrong, so long as he appoints private counsel to represent the agency. This action is different. With this action Attorney General Herring takes it upon himself to declare unconstitutional the provision of the Virginia Constitution, which he is sworn to uphold. I believe this to be wrong.
Cite? I don't recall Cooch filing a brief in support of someone challenging state law.
Here's one. I'm searching for the other one I remember: Cuccinelli won't defend ...
A law is a law. Defend the Commonwealth's laws (even this stupid anti-marriage-equality one) or don't run for the job.
WHEREAS, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring has refused to preserve, protect and defend a provision of the Bill of Rights of the Virginia Constitution;
WHEREAS, the Virginia Constitution is paramount law that establishes, constitutes and governs the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including creating the elected, constitutional office of Attorney General;
WHEREAS, General Herring has chosen to disregard that paramount law that governs his office, and is violating his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which constitute a neglect of duty;
WHEREAS, the Bill of Rights in Article I of the Virginia Constitution is “a DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the good people of Virginia in the exercise of their sovereign powers, which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government;”
WHEREAS, Section 2 of Article I, “People the source of power,” states “That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them;”
WHEREAS, by refusing to enforce one of the rights in the Virginia Bill of Rights, General Herring has renounced his oath of office, which will set dangerous precedent that he may refuse to enforce the Constitution, including the rights articulated in the Bill of Rights such as: Section 6 Free elections, consent of governed; Section 7 Laws should not be suspended; Section 8 Criminal prosecutions (“a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, and to call for evidence in his favor, and he shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty. He shall not be deprived of life or liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers, nor be compelled in any criminal proceeding to give evidence against himself, nor be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense”); Section 8-A Rights of victims of crime; Section 9 Prohibition of excessive bail and fines, cruel and unusual punishment, suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws; Section 10 General warrants of search or seizure prohibited; Section 11 Due process of law; obligation of contracts; taking or damaging of private property; prohibited discrimination; jury trial in civil cases; and Section 12 Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition;
WHEREAS, the nature of General Herring’s neglect of duty is not only unprecedented, but is a danger to all Virginians because without adherence to the paramount law that governs the government of Virginia, all rights of Virginians are at the mercy of government unconstrained by the rule of law;
WHEREAS, Article IV, Section 17 of the Constitution states that the Attorney General “offending against the Commonwealth by malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty, or other high crime or misdemeanor may be impeached by the House of Delegates and prosecuted before the Senate, which shall have the sole power to try impeachments;”
IT IS THEREFORE RESOLVED that the House of Delegates should fulfill its constitutional duty by commencing the impeachment of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring.