NOM Calls for Impeachment of Virginia's Attorney General

CriticalThought · Jan 25, 2014

Oath of office for Attorney General of Virginia...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as ... according to the best of my ability (so help me God)."

And the argument from the National Organization for Marriage...

"Attorney General Herring swore an oath to defend the constitution of the Commonwealth, yet now he is participating in a lawsuit against the very people he is sworn to represent, the citizens of Virginia who preserved marriage in their constitution. This malfeasance and neglect of duty is not only a disgrace, it's an impeachable offense under the constitution." — Brian Brown, NOM president

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today called for the impeachment of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring for "malfeasance" and "neglect of duty" and violating his sworn oath of office to support the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Instead of defending the Commonwealth's duly enacted marriage amendment, Herring is supporting a federal lawsuit by gay activists to redefine marriage in Virginia's constitution.

"The Attorney General swore an oath that he would 'support...the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia' and faithfully discharge his duties, which include defending duly enacted laws like the state's marriage amendment," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Yet now Attorney General Herring is participating in a lawsuit against the very people he is sworn to represent, the citizens of Virginia who preserved marriage in their constitution. This malfeasance and neglect of duty is not only a disgrace, it's an impeachable offense under the constitution."

National Organization for Marriage Calls for Impeachment of Virginia's Attorney General for Malfeasance and Neglect of Duty, Abandoning His Oath of Office and Betraying the People of Virginia | NOM Blog

Summerwind · Jan 25, 2014

Oh, the poutrage because an atty general isn't going to waste taxpayer money and his office's time and budget fighting a losing cause. There have been numerous federal and state judge decisions that indicate it would be a waste since ultimately if it's federally illegal to discriminate, then VA will have no choice. Between now and the USCS decision why should he waste VA taxpayers' money?

chromium · Jan 25, 2014

“As attorney general, I cannot and will not defend a law that violates Virginians’ fundamental constitutional rights,”

Sounds like he's doing a splendid job. NOM has no more credibility on this than the KKK does on racial issues.

ChezC3 · Jan 25, 2014

Whether or not the AG agrees or disagrees with a law is completely irrelevant. His job is to see that it is enforced. It's the law. Don't like the law? See that you elect congressmen to change the law, then you don't have to enforce that which you disagree with. Holding the position of AG presents a conflict of interest as it involves legal battles regarding legislation which he is required by oath and by law to enforce. Therefore(oh, wonderful, therefore!) his involvement in said lawsuit is in direct conflict with his duties of office. He should either recuse himself of the lawsuit or of his position.

joG · Jan 25, 2014

CriticalThought said:
Oath of office for Attorney General of Virginia...

And the argument from the National Organization for Marriage...

National Organization for Marriage Calls for Impeachment of Virginia's Attorney General for Malfeasance and Neglect of Duty, Abandoning His Oath of Office and Betraying the People of Virginia | NOM Blog

I do not know enough about this situation. But is the AT allowed to participate in changing the constitution constitutionally? Or is there a second issue?

Excon · Jan 25, 2014

ChezC3 said:
Whether or not the AG agrees or disagrees with a law is completely irrelevant. His job is to see that it is enforced. It's the law. Don't like the law? See that you elect congressmen to change the law, then you don't have to enforce that which you disagree with. Holding the position of AG presents a conflict of interest as it involves legal battles regarding legislation which he is required by oath and by law to enforce. Therefore(oh, wonderful, therefore!) his involvement in said lawsuit is in direct conflict with his duties of office. He should either recuse himself of the lawsuit or of his position.

And there it is.
Those who support the other camp in this care not about the law. They support what they want even if it is a violation of the law.

ChezC3 · Jan 25, 2014

Excon said:
And there it is.
Those who support the other camp in this care not about the law. They support what they want even if it is a violation of the law.

Right, which is why law is meaningless. Power everything.

WorldWatcher · Jan 25, 2014

>

Just for context, it's not just this AG. Republican AG's do the same thing, they just have different laws they may choose to view as "unconstitutional" and therefore refuse to defend.

Take Ken Cuccinelli, he also refused to defend something because he felft it was unconstitutoinal.

"Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is elaborating on why he won't
defend in court a new law supported by Gov. Bob McDonnell
allowing the state to take control of failing schools."

Cuccinelli won't defend failing-schools law in court | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

>>>>

chromium · Jan 25, 2014

Excon said:
And there it is.
Those who support the other camp in this care not about the law. They support what they want even if it is a violation of the law.

Consider the other side has been breaking constitutional law for two decades now (going back to "DOMA"), no i really could not care less.

Excon · Jan 25, 2014

chromium said:
Consider the other side has been breaking constitutional law for two decades now (going back to "DOMA"), no i really could not care less.

Not even the same thing.

It i snot the AG's responsibility to arbitrarily determine what is or isn't Constitutional of that which was appropriately passed by the legislature. It is his job to enforce the laws as they are.
It is the Court's job to determine that.

X Factor · Jan 25, 2014

chromium said:
Consider the other side has been breaking constitutional law for two decades now (going back to "DOMA"), no i really could not care less.

You should worry a little about this pick and choose attitude that's been so popular lately. Right now you disagree with the law so it's ok with you. That's a little short sighted. Can I assume that there won't be any complaints from you when the law being ignored is one you support?

Deuce · Jan 25, 2014

ChezC3 said:
Whether or not the AG agrees or disagrees with a law is completely irrelevant. His job is to see that it is enforced. It's the law. Don't like the law? See that you elect congressmen to change the law, then you don't have to enforce that which you disagree with. Holding the position of AG presents a conflict of interest as it involves legal battles regarding legislation which he is required by oath and by law to enforce. Therefore(oh, wonderful, therefore!) his involvement in said lawsuit is in direct conflict with his duties of office. He should either recuse himself of the lawsuit or of his position.

It is being enforced. Where's all this rant come from?

He's not defending it in court. This isn't the same thing as not being enforced. Why do you guys always make this same mistake?

Deuce · Jan 25, 2014

X Factor said:
You should worry a little about this pick and choose attitude that's been so popular lately. Right now you disagree with the law so it's ok with you. That's a little short sighted. Can I assume that there won't be any complaints from you when the law being ignored is one you support?

Yet another one going with the "because you disagree with it" straw man.

You guys need to quit acting like he's doing this purely because he doesn't like a law. Instead, respond to the actual argument being made: the man believes the law is unconstitutional. He has no basis on which to defend it in court.

Can you supply such a basis?

sangha · Jan 25, 2014

Excon said:
Not even the same thing.

It i snot the AG's responsibility to arbitrarily determine what is or isn't Constitutional of that which was appropriately passed by the legislature. It is his job to enforce the laws as they are.
It is the Court's job to determine that.

There is nothing arbitrary about his conclusion

Deuce · Jan 25, 2014

sangha said:
There is nothing arbitrary about his conclusion

If they pretend it was arbitrary then they don't have to actually argue a point. Don't make them actually try to debate something honestly, that's not fair!

chromium · Jan 25, 2014

X Factor said:
You should worry a little about this pick and choose attitude that's been so popular lately. Right now you disagree with the law so it's ok with you. That's a little short sighted. Can I assume that there won't be any complaints from you when the law being ignored is one you support?

The law wasn't ignored by the AG so much as interpreted as being unconstitutional, which i agree with. It's the same thing that happened in CA and that obama did with "DOMA." They have the right to not defend unconstitutional laws.

Anyway my point was that the other side has taken a "total war" approach to this issue, so i'm not going to shed any tears if they cry foul over "will of the majority" from a decade ago.

Bob N · Jan 25, 2014

Summerwind said:
Oh, the poutrage because an atty general isn't going to waste taxpayer money and his office's time and budget fighting a losing cause. There have been numerous federal and state judge decisions that indicate it would be a waste since ultimately if it's federally illegal to discriminate, then VA will have no choice. Between now and the USCS decision why should he waste VA taxpayers' money?

That's OK, Summerwind. There's a lawmaker in Oklahoma that's going to solve this whole thing by getting rid of marriages period. I guess this is a new way of controlling peoples' lives to get your narrow way of thinking to be popular. You know what I mean? To heck with the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. :roll:

Excon · Jan 25, 2014

sangha said:
There is nothing arbitrary about his conclusion

Yes there is. His conclusion is arbitrary, as he in not the arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional.

Excon · Jan 25, 2014

Deuce said:
If they pretend it was arbitrary then they don't have to actually argue a point. Don't make them actually try to debate something honestly, that's not fair!

The only thing being debated is the right or wrongness of a AG not enforcing the laws of the land.
As he does not get to choose what is or isn't constitutional it is wrong.
To go outside of those bounds, is not being honest.

Deuce · Jan 25, 2014

Excon said:
Yes there is. His conclusion is arbitrary, as he in not the arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional.

Horse****. Here's his legal brief:
Virginia won't defend its same-sex marriage ban

Not at all arbitrary.

Excon said:
The only thing being debated is the right or wrongness of a AG not enforcing the laws of the land.
As he does not get to choose what is or isn't constitutional it is wrong.
To go outside of those bounds, is not being honest.

THE LAW

IS BEING

ENFORCED

How many times do you people have to be told that? There's a difference between defending a law in court and enforcing it in action.

winston53660 · Jan 25, 2014

Excon said:
The only thing being debated is the right or wrongness of a AG not enforcing the laws of the land.
As he does not get to choose what is or isn't constitutional it is wrong.
To go outside of those bounds, is not being honest.

The law is still being enforced.

ChezC3 · Jan 25, 2014

Deuce said:
It is being enforced. Where's all this rant come from?

He's not defending it in court. This isn't the same thing as not being enforced. Why do you guys always make this same mistake?

I never said he wasn't making sure it was enforced. Read what I wrote. Describing what his duties are isn't ranting that he is isn't fulfilling them.

Involving himself in the lawsuit, in any capacity is a conflict.

Read what I wrote and respond accordingly instead of inferring an argument on me that you think you'll win handily. Why do you guys keeping making this same mistake?

Deuce · Jan 25, 2014

ChezC3 said:
I never said he wasn't making sure it was enforced. Read what I wrote. Describing what his duties are isn't ranting that he is isn't fulfilling them.

Involving himself in the lawsuit, in any capacity is a conflict.

Read what I wrote and respond accordingly instead of inferring an argument on me that you think you'll win handily. Why do you guys keeping making this same mistake?

You brought up enforcement. If it wasn't relevant, mentioning it was your mistake, not mine.

His oath is to uphold the constitution. I don't see that being in conflict with helping in the removal of an unconstitutional law.

Excon · Jan 25, 2014

winston53660 said:
The law is still being enforced.

Apparently not.
The law requires him to support and defend the laws. He is not doing that.

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today called for the impeachment of Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring for "malfeasance" and "neglect of duty" and violating his sworn oath of office to support the constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Instead of defending the Commonwealth's duly enacted marriage amendment, Herring is supporting a federal lawsuit by gay activists to redefine marriage in Virginia's constitution.

"The Attorney General swore an oath that he would 'support...the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia' and faithfully discharge his duties, which include defending duly enacted laws like the state's marriage amendment," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Yet now Attorney General Herring is participating in a lawsuit against the very people he is sworn to represent, the citizens of Virginia who preserved marriage in their constitution. This malfeasance and neglect of duty is not only a disgrace, it's an impeachable offense under the constitution."

Deuce said:
Horse****. Here's his legal brief:
Virginia won't defend its same-sex marriage ban

Not at all arbitrary.

Yes it is arbitrary. He is required to enforce the laws of the land. Not to challenge them.

Deuce said:
THE LAW

IS BEING

ENFORCED

How many times do you people have to be told that? There's a difference between defending a law in court and enforcing it in action.

See. Trying to go out side of what was said. Figures.
He is not following the law of the land by supporting and defending his constitution. His actions are not an act of enforcement.
You can scream like a child all you want. It doesn't change the facts of what has been said.

Unitedwestand13 · Jan 25, 2014

Excon said:
Yes there is. His conclusion is arbitrary, as he in not the arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional.

Then who is the arbiter then.

NOM Calls for Impeachment of Virginia's Attorney General

Should the AG of Virginia be impeached?

Yes

No

Not sure

Don't care

Hot Flash Mama

Relentless Thinking Fury

Relentless Thinking Fury

Anti-Socialist

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Outer space potato man

Weekend Political Pundit

Outer space potato man

Relentless Thinking Fury

Outer space potato man