More evidence of Virginia's blueness...

[SmarterthanYou]

Technology has changed, sure there is still danger from a standing army, but almost 250 years of history without a military coup, and the entire world watching the fear is less.

It does not matter much anyway, how could individuals compare to the might that is the United States military?

you don't believe that if we were equally armed as the US military, that we still wouldn't have a chance?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The Constitution does not say that the right to free speech shall not be abridged. It says that "Congress shall pass no law,... limiting the right to free speech." The difference in wording is significant and relevant. If the writers had the same intent, the would have used the same words.

The framers used the word arms, as it was defined in 1780. They had not imagined the invention of the machine gun, or the nuclear missile.

Speech is still speech, regardless of if its transmitted by a newspaper or television. A musket is not a machine gun.

I will say that honest disagreement such as the one we are currently discussing, is exactly why we need a Supreme Court to intemperate the Constitution.

They could no more imagine a machine gun, then they could the internet/radio/or TV; so they must have meant it pertained to the forms of speech they had, at that time.

 

[Canceled.2014.2]

so the founders idea of fearing a standing army is dead. we should accept new limits on our rights to maintain our freedom because they already are?

It's not dead. The point I am making is that individuals will not stand up against the US government. Not going to happen.

 

[Jarod]

you don't believe that if we were equally armed as the US military, that we still wouldn't have a chance?

Sure if we were equally armed, trained and otherwise funded, we would have a good chance, and if Santa Clause was real I would have gotten a house on the beach for Christmas.

 

[Canceled.2014.2]

you don't believe that if we were equally armed as the US military, that we still wouldn't have a chance?

....and I have a sub pen with a boomer and a few other nuke subs in my back yard. I will get back to you on that one....you may be onto something...

 

[Canceled.2014.2]

Sure if we were equally armed, trained and otherwise funded, we would have a good chance, and if Santa Clause was real I would have gotten a house on the beach for Christmas.

....and if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle....

 

[Jarod]

They could no more imagine a machine gun, then they could the internet/radio/or TV; so they must have meant it pertained to the forms of speech they had, at that time.

The form of speech is the same, the method of transmitting is different. The actual form of weapons are now different.

Additionally you failed to address the more important factor which is the different wording in the two Amendments. "Congress shall pass no law, ... abridging the freedom of speech" has a very different meaning than "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[USFREEDOM911]

One individual, n o matter how well armed, or one small group of individuals, is not going to stand against the US government. Look at how they rolled over the military forces of Iraq like they were a high school marching band. You really think a southern militia is going to stand up against the US marines?

What makes you think the US Marines would go against a Southern militia?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The form of speech is the same, the method of transmitting is different. The actual form of weapons are now different.

Additionally you failed to address the more important factor which is the different wording in the two Amendments. "Congress shall pass no law, ... abridging the freedom of speech" has a very different meaning than "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And just like the form of "speech" has changed over time, so has the kind of weaponry that shall not be infringed.

 

[maineman]

obviously....some people know very little about what it means to BE a United States Marine....

 

[Truth Detector]

are you really that idiotic to think that the words in the oath of office have no bearing? The AG upholds the constitution. It's his job. He decides how to do that... if the voters don't like his approach, they can refuse to reelect him or they can impeach him.

Dear shit-for-brainsl the oath of office is swearing to uphold the laws of the land; no where does it say select which laws to enforce.

Responsibilities
The Office of the Attorney General is the Commonwealth's law firm. Its clients are the Virginia state government and the state agencies, boards and commissions that compose that government.

The Office of the Attorney General includes a chief deputy attorney general, five deputy attorneys general and other employees that include assistant attorneys general, additional lawyers appointed as counsel to particular agencies, legal assistants, legal secretaries and other professional support staff. The Office of the Attorney General is structured like a private law firm, with sections devoted to legal specialties.

One thing the Attorney General and the other attorneys on our staff cannot do is give legal advice to private citizens. If you have a private dispute, this Office cannot intervene. To find more information regarding finding an attorney for a private legal matter, please click here.

The duties and powers include:

•Provide legal advice and representation to the Governor and executive agencies, state boards and commissions, and institutions of higher education. The advice commonly includes help with personnel issues, contracts, purchasing, regulatory and real estate matters and the review of proposed legislation. The Office also represents those agencies in court.

•Provide written legal advice in the form of official opinions to members of the General Assembly and government officials.

•Defend criminal convictions on appeal, and defend the state when prisoners sue concerning their incarceration.

•Defend the constitutionality of state laws when they are challenged in court.

•Serve as the clearinghouse for the receipt, evaluation, investigation and referral of consumer complaints.

•Enforce antitrust laws that protect businesses and consumers from behavior that defeats healthy competition.

•Enforce state consumer protections laws.

•Represent consumers in utility matters before the State Corporation Commission.

•Collect debts owed to state agencies, hospitals and universities.

•Conduct or assist criminal investigations and prosecutions in certain limited cases (for example Medicaid fraud, money laundering, theft of state property, environmental crimes, and computer crimes).

•Represent the Department of Social Services in its efforts to collect child support on behalf of children and families.

•Supervise the appointment and payment of private attorneys hired by other state agencies for various matters.

•Assist victims of crime who are following criminal cases at the appellate level.

•Provide information to the public on Identity Theft prevention and remediation.

•Administer grants to help reduce crimes involving gangs, drugs and sex predators.

•Administer the Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Program to protect children from the most dangerous predators.

http://www.oag.state.va.us/About the Office/Responsibilities.html

 

[Truth Detector]

At least in Florida, they are instructed to "Follow the law" and told that they have a duty to do so, regardless of personal beliefs'.

And they are not in Virginia?

 

[Jarod]

And they are not in Virginia?

IDK

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And just like the form of "speech" has changed over time, so has the kind of weaponry that shall not be infringed.

Looks like my education of J-Rod has resulted in him resorting to groans, instead of attempting to refute what was presented.
His lose - my gain.

 

[NOVA]

As I've said before, in this very thread, if you are going to protect a document, you need to have an understanding of what it says and means. Unless you think the intent of that oath means that the AG should stand guard at the national archives with a gun protecting the actual pieces of parchment.

You need to have an understanding of what it says and means as instructed by the SCOTUS....not by your own interpretation......just to clarify.
The AG only gets to choose the methods he uses to enforce the directives of the courts.....

the oath of office is swearing to uphold the laws of the land; no where does it say select which laws to enforce.

Seems only Obama has this privilege....he routinely ignores the immigration laws, amends passed legislation at will and now ignores federal drug laws...lol

 

[Truth Detector]

While I have tried to make it a practice of late not to directly address you, because you refuse to engage in honest debate or discussion, I will attempt to address your mixed up hodge podge of questions above.

This is an amazing claim from someone who never engages in honest discourse and when called on his false claims can’t back up then when challenged answers questions with a question and uses dishonest tactics like deflecting and obfuscating.

My mixed up hodge podge of questions? What a moronic claim. I am the ONLY one staying the course on a thread you are dishonestly dodging and deflecting and wandering off topic on. This isn’t about the Supreme Court or the Florida AG, it is about the Virginia AG and your moronic claims that he can pick and choose which laws to enforce and moving Virginia Liberal.

You truly are a dishonest dunce of epic proportions.

1. It is not stated in any Constitution that "an AG selectively enforce a States laws based on his/her interpretation of the Constitution". While I am not sure of what you mean by the phrase in quotes, I don't think I ever claimed it was stated in any Constitution. The AG must enforce the law, he however is not required to defend all laws as Constitutional when challenged in Court. In fact, as a lawyer, he has an ethical obligation to refrain from doing so when no legal basis exist to do so.

What law was challenged in court?

2. As to your question about a Conservative AG choosing not to enforce a law, I feel it is his duty to enforce the law, I do not believe it is his duty to defend the law in the Supreme Court, if no legal basis for doing so exists.

I didn’t ask you what you believed, I asked you where it states that an AG can SELECTIVELY pick and choose which laws he is going to enforce?

No one has taken this law to the Supreme Court; so why the obfuscation about defending laws at the Supreme Court?
It was a petty partisan statement by an AG that got elected by an extremely slim margin in a partisan claim by you that this indicates, somehow, that the State is turning “blue.”

He cannot CHOOSE to not defend the laws passed by a State Legislature. That is a violation of his oath to uphold the States laws. If he believes there is a Constitutional question, there are LEGAL remedies for doing so.

So again you do not answer, but deflect like the dishonest uneducated dunce that you are.

3. If such an event occurred in a historically liberal state, and the state elected an AG who was Conservative, and fulfilling his duties as a Conservative, I would tend to agree that such was evidence of a movement toward conservatism.

First off, I asked if you would be okay with it if a State legislature passed a law in support of gay marriage and a Conservative AG determined that it was unconstitutional and therefore choose not to enforce it.

Yes or no? Claiming it is would be an indication of a movement towards conservatism is as stupid and dishonest as your claim Virginia is because an AG chooses not to do what he was elected to do; defend the State’s laws.

 

[Truth Detector]

IDK

Apparently there is a LOT you don't know.

 

[Jarod]

This is an amazing claim from someone who never engages in honest discourse and when called on his false claims can’t back up then when challenged answers questions with a question and uses dishonest tactics like deflecting and obfuscating.

My mixed up hodge podge of questions? What a moronic claim. I am the ONLY one staying the course on a thread you are dishonestly dodging and deflecting and wandering off topic on. This isn’t about the Supreme Court or the Florida AG, it is about the Virginia AG and your moronic claims that he can pick and choose which laws to enforce and moving Virginia Liberal.

You truly are a dishonest dunce of epic proportions.



What law was challenged in court?



I didn’t ask you what you believed, I asked you where it states that an AG can SELECTIVELY pick and choose which laws he is going to enforce?

No one has taken this law to the Supreme Court; so why the obfuscation about defending laws at the Supreme Court?
It was a petty partisan statement by an AG that got elected by an extremely slim margin in a partisan claim by you that this indicates, somehow, that the State is turning “blue.”

He cannot CHOOSE to not defend the laws passed by a State Legislature. That is a violation of his oath to uphold the States laws. If he believes there is a Constitutional question, there are LEGAL remedies for doing so.

So again you do not answer, but deflect like the dishonest uneducated dunce that you are.



First off, I asked if you would be okay with it if a State legislature passed a law in support of gay marriage and a Conservative AG determined that it was unconstitutional and therefore choose not to enforce it.

Yes or no? Claiming it is would be an indication of a movement towards conservatism is as stupid and dishonest as your claim Virginia is because an AG chooses not to do what he was elected to do; defend the State’s laws.

Read the article I cited in the first post. There are challenges to Virginia's law prohibiting same sex marriages. The AG has said he will not defend the law in those cases because after diligent study he has determined that they are unconstitutional.

So you see, there are Constitutional challenges to this law that will soon be heard by the Supreme Court.

 

[Truth Detector]

Read the article I cited in the first post. There are challenges to Virginia's law prohibiting same sex marriages. The AG has said he will not defend the law in those cases because after diligent study he has determined that they are unconstitutional.

I read the article; nothing has been brought to the court. So how does this square with your claim he is not bound; which itself is an amazing and false statement.

It is not the job of the AG to determine what is and is not Constitutional; that is for the Supreme Court. The State AG's job is to enforce the existing laws and advise.

"The attorney general has a constitutional and statutory obligation to enforce and defend the duly adopted laws and Constitution of Virginia," William J. Howell said in a statement. "This is not an obligation that can be taken lightly."

So you see, there are Constitutional challenges to this law that will soon be heard by the Supreme Court.

There aren't any according to your article; because oral arguments are scheduled next week in one of the Virginia cases challenging the state's ban.

So this was nothing more than a naked hyper partisan engaging in political posturing by an AG who apparently does not take his legal role very seriously and should resign if he does not defend the laws passed by the State Legislature which is BOUND to do.

You can fabricate every strawman in the book and it doesn't make your hyper partisan buffoonery look any less stupid.

AG's cannot and should NEVER be allowed to selectively enforce only those laws they agree with. It is a NON-Partisan position who's main duty is upholding the State's laws.

Here's the real crux:

"The attorney general has a constitutional and statutory obligation to enforce and defend the duly adopted laws and Constitution of Virginia," William J. Howell said in a statement. "This is not an obligation that can be taken lightly."

The state Republican chairman, Pat Mullins, said Herring should resign if he doesn't want to defend state laws.

In the state General Assembly, Democratic legislators are still widely outnumbered in the House of Delegates, but they have been emboldened by the shift away from a reliably conservative state.

The fight in Virginia is being partially paid for by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which was behind the effort to overturn California's gay marriage ban.
Here it is again because you are confused; pleased point out where it states he can selectively choose which state laws to enforce:
Responsibilities
The Office of the Attorney General is the Commonwealth's law firm. Its clients are the Virginia state government and the state agencies, boards and commissions that compose that government.

The Office of the Attorney General includes a chief deputy attorney general, five deputy attorneys general and other employees that include assistant attorneys general, additional lawyers appointed as counsel to particular agencies, legal assistants, legal secretaries and other professional support staff. The Office of the Attorney General is structured like a private law firm, with sections devoted to legal specialties.

One thing the Attorney General and the other attorneys on our staff cannot do is give legal advice to private citizens. If you have a private dispute, this Office cannot intervene. To find more information regarding finding an attorney for a private legal matter, please click here.

The duties and powers include:

•Provide legal advice and representation to the Governor and executive agencies, state boards and commissions, and institutions of higher education. The advice commonly includes help with personnel issues, contracts, purchasing, regulatory and real estate matters and the review of proposed legislation. The Office also represents those agencies in court.

•Provide written legal advice in the form of official opinions to members of the General Assembly and government officials.

•Defend criminal convictions on appeal, and defend the state when prisoners sue concerning their incarceration.

•Defend the constitutionality of state laws when they are challenged in court.

•Serve as the clearinghouse for the receipt, evaluation, investigation and referral of consumer complaints.

•Enforce antitrust laws that protect businesses and consumers from behavior that defeats healthy competition.

•Enforce state consumer protections laws.

•Represent consumers in utility matters before the State Corporation Commission.

•Collect debts owed to state agencies, hospitals and universities.

•Conduct or assist criminal investigations and prosecutions in certain limited cases (for example Medicaid fraud, money laundering, theft of state property, environmental crimes, and computer crimes).

•Represent the Department of Social Services in its efforts to collect child support on behalf of children and families.

•Supervise the appointment and payment of private attorneys hired by other state agencies for various matters.

•Assist victims of crime who are following criminal cases at the appellate level.

•Provide information to the public on Identity Theft prevention and remediation.

•Administer grants to help reduce crimes involving gangs, drugs and sex predators.

•Administer the Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment Program to protect children from the most dangerous predators.

http://www.oag.state.va.us/About t...ibilities.html

As I stated earlier; unless you are okay with ignoring the civil rule of law, this slippery slope Liberals are engaging in will paint their ideology into a corner when the "other" guys are in political power.

 

[maineman]

This AG is performing his duties as he recognizes them to be. If the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia disagree with him, they can implore the legislature to impeach him immediately.