Should Mark Herring be impeached?

Repeater · Jan 23, 2014

It would now appear painfully obvious to (almost) all that Mark Herring is an incredibly dangerous ideologue.

We all should expect the AG to defend the laws of the Commonwealth -- AND our Virginia Constitution -- unless plainly unconstitutional.

If the AG won't defend provisions of laws he doesn't like, that would likely extend to gun laws.

Now there is talk of impeachment:

You don’t get to cherry pick which laws you like and which ones you don’t when you’re the state’s top law enforcement official. Your job is to enforce them all. If you believe that a part of the state constitution or a law is unjust, then as Attorney General you can submit your recommendation to the General Assembly for them to change the law or put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to correct it.

It is not the job of the Attorney General to decide whether a law is constitutional or not (and in this case, the law in question is part of the Virginia state constitution, so by definition it cannot be unconstitutional at the state level). Furthermore, neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over Virginia have ruled on the constitutionality of this issue, so even if Herring were to argue he is following the U.S. Constitution, there is no legal basis for that assertion.

It is time for our elected officials in the General Assembly, from both parties, to take a stand and affirm that we have proper procedures for dealing with such matters legislatively, not by fiats and whims. If they fail to do so, they will have ceded considerable authority that they will not be able to regain.

From our Constitution:

Section 17. Impeachment.

The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, judges, members of the State Corporation Commission, and all officers appointed by the Governor or elected by the General Assembly, 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. When sitting for that purpose, the senators shall be on oath or affirmation, and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators present. Judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Commonwealth; but the person convicted shall nevertheless be subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law. The Senate may sit during the recess of the General Assembly for the trial of impeachments.

marshaul · Jan 23, 2014

It is the moral imperative of every man alive to fail to see enforced any law which he believes is aggressive, or even unconstitutional. We need more in law enforcement to "cherry-pick" which laws they enforce, given that most laws shouldn't be enforced.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was placing the law on an altar.

The problem is solely in enforcing laws which don't exist.

builtjeep · Jan 23, 2014

He's doing the same thing Cooch did.

Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk

Thundar · Jan 23, 2014

Herring will definitely screw us. Elections have consequences. Obenshain would have been our Attorney General, but he was screwed by the Cooch.

Impeachment in the House of Delegates is easy, but there is no way 7 Democrat State Senators (6 if the recount in the 6th Senate District goes to the Republicans) will vote to convict their Attorney General. They paid a lot of $$$ to buy, I mean elect him!!!

Grapeshot · Jan 23, 2014

The two faces of Mark Herring

Newly elected Democratic Attorney General Mark R. Herring said he would support gay couples who have filed lawsuits challenging the state's ban.

Herring stressed the same-sex ban will be enforced despite his challenge.

http://www.kiiitv.com/story/24526010/va-ag-state-marriage-ban-unconstitutional

optiksguy · Jan 23, 2014

builtjeep said:
He's doing the same thing Cooch did.

Cite? I don't recall Cooch filing a brief in support of someone challenging state law.

va_tazdad · Jan 23, 2014

Say what???????

marshaul said:
It is the moral imperative of every man alive to fail to see enforced any law which he believes is aggressive, or even unconstitutional. We need more in law enforcement to "cherry-pick" which laws they enforce, given that most laws shouldn't be enforced.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was placing the law on an altar.

The problem is solely in enforcing laws which don't exist.

Brilliant. So you have no problems with a LEO that enforces speed laws, but does not enforce assault and battery or murder laws.

That is part of the problem with the judiciary now. Each idiot judge thinks he knows best, and you want to put that stupidity in the hands of the police????????

Brilliant, just brilliant. You aren't in the Senate by chance are you???????

Repeater · Jan 23, 2014

optiksguy said:
Cite? I don't recall Cooch filing a brief in support of someone challenging state law.

Exactly! That is unprecedented. See what others are saying:

Reaction is swift and strong to Herring’s challenge to ban on same-sex marriage

State Sen. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun): “I don’t know what the difference between a dictatorship and this is.”

And: “It’s extremely disappointing to me because in state after state, people have voted to define marriage as one man and one woman, and the courts and the gay rights movement have jointly devised this strategy to cut the public out of the process. And what you see is Democrat attorneys general refuse to defend the law and the courts very cynically denying anyone else the right to defend it.”

...

Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah): “Not two weeks ago I watched the attorney general swear an oath before God and the people of Virginia to preserve, protect and defend our constitution, and it didn’t take him long to find a way out of that.”

He said the attorney general can’t “pick and choose” which parts of the state constitution to defend. At the same time, he said: “I’m not at all surprised. We thought this was coming.” It’s why he introduced a bill that would allow lawmakers in the General Assembly to defend a law in place of the attorney general, he said.

Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who is seeking legal counsel to determine whether he can take action against Herring under the theory the attorney general misused funds: “We appropriate money for people to defend the constitution, not to attack it. This is a complete dereliction of his duty.”

marshaul · Jan 23, 2014

va_tazdad said:
Brilliant. So you have no problems with a LEO that enforces speed laws, but does not enforce assault and battery or murder laws.

That is part of the problem with the judiciary now. Each idiot judge thinks he knows best, and you want to put that stupidity in the hands of the police????????

Brilliant, just brilliant. You aren't in the Senate by chance are you???????

Real crimes have victims. Crimes with victims don't need "law enforcement officers" to be prosecuted. LEOs are for non-crime laws. Like speeding.

va_tazdad · Jan 23, 2014

marshaul said:
Real crimes have victims. Crimes with victims don't need "law enforcement officers" to be prosecuted. LEOs are for non-crime laws. Like speeding.

So just who will be investigating these crime in your universe???? Obviously not LEOs. I guess you think the Clown Union will do it, right?

What are you smoking???? Better move to Colorado based on your posts.

marshaul · Jan 23, 2014

va_tazdad said:
So just who will be investigating these crime in your universe???? Obviously not LEOs. I guess you think the Clown Union will do it, right?

There's this little thing called a grand jury...

Next time, think a minute before you respond. I promise you I have.

What are you smoking???? Better move to Colorado based on your posts.

lol. Says the guy with the ad hominems. :lol:

va_tazdad · Jan 23, 2014

Put the bong down and step away David

marshaul said:
There's this little thing called a grand jury...

Next time, think a minute before you respond. I promise you I have.

lol. Says the guy with the ad hominems. :lol:

Grand Juries don't investigate anything, they just decide if prosecution is warranted. Maybe you should pull your head out and try breathing clean air before you spew again.

You are giving David a run for his money for dumb posts tonight.

marshaul · Jan 23, 2014

va_tazdad said:
Grand Juries don't investigate anything, they just decide if prosecution is warranted. Maybe you should pull your head out and try breathing clean air before you spew again.

You are giving David a run for his money for dumb posts tonight.

Grand juries are, in fact, empowered in many states to investigate beyond the whims of the local prosecuting attorney. Under the common law this was actually the primary function of a grand jury (along with returning indictments based on the results of their investigations).

Moreover, it has happened even relatively recently in the US (wikipedia mentions it), so the mechanism patently exists to employ this sort of investigation.

I'd point out this has the advantage of avoiding reliance on the sole judgment of an individual or group who may be unusually predisposed to tolerating the crime in question. For instance, it would do a nice job of helping victims of police violence obtain justice. And it avoids your worries about the "cop who busts for speeding but tolerates murder" (or similar).

You can spare the insults; I've suffered better.

I maintain that no man should seek to have enforced a law which he believes is wrong. If a jury decides otherwise, so be it.

I understand that what I argue implies massive reform of the existing legal system (although the common law provides a template for much of this reform). So be it.

builtjeep · Jan 23, 2014

optiksguy said:
Cite? I don't recall Cooch filing a brief in support of someone challenging state law.

I hadn't heard about that part when I replied. I was referring to Cooch claiming he had no choice but to defend Gmu's gun ban, then later refusing to defend Mcdonnell's state takeover of failing school's law because he believed it to be unconstitutional.

Sent from my XT912 using Tapatalk

Grapeshot · Jan 23, 2014

Mark Obenshain's statements on Herring's announced use of AG office.

http://obens.campaign-view.com/ua/v...5463&n=11699e4bfd534af&mrd=13551b26335427&m=1

FBrinson · Jan 23, 2014

Grapeshot said:
Mark Obenshain's statements on Herring's announced use of AG office.

http://obens.campaign-view.com/ua/v...5463&n=11699e4bfd534af&mrd=13551b26335427&m=1

Great statement by Obenshain. But no one should be surprised by Herring's stance/decision. The progressives feel empowered and that they have a mandate for this.

It's infuriating that so many stand by and watch our government get destroyed from within.

The Wolfhound · Jan 24, 2014

OK, Mark...

You swore an oath. You say that you are compelled to support the rights of the citizens against infringement. We have our rights to self defense and to arms (all kinds, not just guns). When are you going after The National Firearms Act of 1934? The Gun Control Act of 1968? Need I go on? You sir, are now a proven hypocrite. We are waiting. We are watching. We are infringed. Live up to your words.

Grapeshot · Jan 24, 2014

Herring stole votes with his deception - he is a man dishonored - he brings shame on Virginia.

marshaul · Jan 24, 2014

Grapeshot said:
Mark Obenshain's statements on Herring's announced use of AG office.

http://obens.campaign-view.com/ua/v...5463&n=11699e4bfd534af&mrd=13551b26335427&m=1

Obenshain said:
I consider the question of whether or not the Office of the Attorney General is to defend Virginia law a matter of utmost importance, something that goes to the heart of the duties of the Attorney General

I'm sorry, was that supposed to impress me? I'd give my left nut for an AG who wasn't willing to "defend" Virginia's many ridiculous laws.

IMHO, you're all barking up the wrong tree. You should be demanding of the GOP that, next time, they advance a candidate who's actually a decent human being and who will refuse to "defend" any gun laws whatever. Not more of this crap.

Whatever. It's clear to me that many here are more inspired by partisanship than by liberty. How many here would fuss if one gun a month was refused to be defended?

It's one thing to point out the hypocrisy of a clown like Herring, it's another to champion tyranny as the alternative.

Grapeshot · Jan 24, 2014

^ ^ Shoot your friends often? ^ ^

We seek the same end.

Should Mark Herring be impeached?

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Legendary Warrior