More evidence of Virginia's blueness...

[maineman]

maineman, can you explain why you groaned this statement of mine? do you disagree with it? or are you angry that I pointed out the truth?

the constitution lays out the duties of the AG, does it not? One of which is to uphold the constitutions of not only the state but the federal government. Just another wonderful check and balance we have to guard against the tyranny of the mob rule.

 

[Truth Detector]

Same thing with our Attorney General in PA, I was never so proud of a politician.

Liberals are usually proud of partisanship, as long asit is their "deciders" in charge. They whine like ignorant little babies when the shoe is on the other foot.

But that is the hypocrisy Liberals love to wallow in. We are no longer a nation of laws, but a nation of partisans who can
pick and choose the laws we wish to enforce.

I dont expect low information voters to comprehend the dangers of such partisan buffoonery. They don't have the intelligence to.

 

[Jarod]

then what is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and what does it protect? and when you 'interpret' this Amendment, please provide the historical text of the founders which prove your interpretation.

It prohibits the government from shortening the right to bear arms, as "arms" were understood in the 1780's. Machine guns did not exist then, and thus allowing lengthens the right, not shortens it.

 

[Jarod]

then we go back to who wrote the constitution. did the supreme court write it? did the supreme court ratify it? is the supreme court the sole interpreter of the constitution? please provide the historical text of the framers to back up your supposition.

The S.Ct. was created by the Constitution. See Marbury v. Madison regarding how they perceive their role as defined by the Constitution.

 

[Truth Detector]

the constitution lays out the duties of the AG, does it not? One of which is to uphold the constitutions of not only the state but the federal government. Just another wonderful check and balance we have to guard against the tyranny of the mob rule.

Wrong again shit-for-brains; the State Constitution lays out the duties of that States AG, and if you read Virginias, you would find that it does not say the AG can choose which laws they WISH to enforce.

It's obvious you haven't the first clue of what checks and balance means when you claim that AGs can pick and choose which laws to enforce.

But again, you really are THAT stupid.

Meanwhile, your dimwitted buddy Jarod still cannot answer a question honestly without deflecting because, like you, he is a dishonest hyperpartisan dunce stuck permanently on stupid.

Read the duties of Virginia Attorney General on their web site and post the part that says the AG can decide what laws are Constitutional and where he can elect to not enforce them.

 

[maineman]

Wrong again shit-for-brains; the State Constitution lays out the duties of that States AG, and if you read Virginias, you would find that it does not say the AG can choose which laws they WISH to enforce.

It's obvious you haven't the first clue of what checks and balance means when you claim that AGs can pick and choose which laws to enforce.

But again, you really are THAT stupid.

Meanwhile, your dimwitted buddy Jarod still cannot answer a question honestly without deflecting because, like you, he is a dishonest hyperpartisan dunce stuck permanently on stupid.

Read the duties of Virginia Attorney General on their web site and post the part that says the AG can decide what laws are Constitutional and where he can elect to not enforce them.

it actually does say that the state AG must uphold and defend both the state and the US constitution. He is doing that to the best of his understanding, and, if the people don't like it, they can impeach him. Short of that, he'll do his job the way he believes is in accordance with his oath. DO you live there? If not... why do you give a fuck?

 

[Jarod]

Wrong again shit-for-brains; the State Constitution lays out the duties of that States AG, and if you read Virginias, you would find that it does not say the AG can choose which laws they WISH to enforce.

It's obvious you haven't the first clue of what checks and balance means when you claim that AGs can pick and choose which laws to enforce.

But again, you really are THAT stupid.

Meanwhile, your dimwitted buddy Jarod still cannot answer a question honestly without deflecting because, like you, he is a dishonest hyperpartisan dunce stuck permanently on stupid.

Read the duties of Virginia Attorney General on their web site and post the part that says the AG can decide what laws are Constitutional and where he can elect to not enforce them.

1. I believe I answered all of your questions.
2. The Constitution of Virginia outlines the oath of office of the Attorney General, as I quoted above. The first thing the AG must do is promise to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Truth Detector]

It prohibits the government from shortening the right to bear arms, as "arms" were understood in the 1780's. Machine guns did not exist then, and thus allowing lengthens the right, not shortens it.

Fascinating how you are more than willing to engage in an off topic debate on a thread you started to avoid answering a simple question.

I cannot say I am surprised by your dishonest buffoonery; it's all Liberals can resort to when their dimwitted false claims are challenged.

 

[Jarod]

Does anyone have a question they feel I have not answered? About any topic raised on this thread? Ill be happy to address it if I missed it...

 

[Truth Detector]

1. I believe I answered all of your questions.
2. The Constitution of Virginia outlines the oath of office of the Attorney General, as I quoted above. The first thing the AG must do is promise to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

No you did not; you deflect and you obfuscate, but do not answer. The oath of office does not define the duties and responsibilities.

So I will ask you again, and have affirmed it for myself through a simple google search; where is it stated that an AG selectively enforce a States laws based on his/her interpretation of the Constitution?

I'll make it easier for you; if a State legislature passed a law in support of gay marraige and a Conservative AG determined that it was unconstitutional and therefore choose not to enforce it, would you be okay with that? Would that mean the State is becoming more red?

 

[Phantasmal]

states do not have rights. governments of any capacity do not have rights. they only have powers prescribed to them from 'we the people'. you thought wrong.

Our AG said he wouldn't enforce any gun control laws, how do you feel about that proclamation? Lol

It is actually a rhetorical question because I know you would support him in this matter.

 

[Truth Detector]

Does anyone have a question they feel I have not answered? About any topic raised on this thread? Ill be happy to address it if I missed it...

Now you are just being a dishonest liar. You haven't answered any question of the duties of the States AG. You have deflected and engaged in off topic bloviating to avoid the dishonesty and stupidity of your original claim.

Are you really that stupid to think that an oath of office constitutes the duties of the office?

 

[Truth Detector]

Our AG said he wouldn't enforce any gun control laws, how do you feel about that proclamation? Lol

It is actually a rhetorical question because I know you would support him in this matter.

They did? Which State is that and what is his/her name? Where is the specific quote?

 

[maineman]

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.

 

[Canceled.2014.2]

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.

....and by a very slim margin they chose a democrat. Given the dishonesty of the former AG who was republican (using his office to harass actual scientists) this seems to have been a wise choice on the part of Virginia.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

the constitution lays out the duties of the AG, does it not? One of which is to uphold the constitutions of not only the state but the federal government. Just another wonderful check and balance we have to guard against the tyranny of the mob rule.

show me where the US Constitution lays out the duties of an AG.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It prohibits the government from shortening the right to bear arms, as "arms" were understood in the 1780's. Machine guns did not exist then, and thus allowing lengthens the right, not shortens it.

so radio, tv, and internet are not protected forms of free speech? or better yet, maybe you can show us where the text of the framers defined 'arms' as only muskets and cannons.

 

[Jarod]

No you did not; you deflect and you obfuscate, but do not answer. The oath of office does not define the duties and responsibilities.

So I will ask you again, and have affirmed it for myself through a simple google search; where is it stated that an AG selectively enforce a States laws based on his/her interpretation of the Constitution?

I'll make it easier for you; if a State legislature passed a law in support of gay marraige and a Conservative AG determined that it was unconstitutional and therefore choose not to enforce it, would you be okay with that? Would that mean the State is becoming more red?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[maineman]

show me where the US Constitution lays out the duties of an AG.

the constitution I was referring to was the state constitution... that's why I said that the AG is to uphold not only the state constitution but the federal one as well. The Virginia state constitution states:

Section 15. Attorney General.

An Attorney General shall be elected by the qualified voters of the Commonwealth at the same time and for the same term as the Governor; and the fact of his election shall be ascertained in the same manner. No person shall be eligible for election or appointment to the office of Attorney General unless he is a citizen of the United States, has attained the age of thirty years, and has the qualifications required for a judge of a court of record. He shall perform such duties and receive such compensation as may be prescribed by law, which compensation shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected. There shall be no limit on the terms of the Attorney General.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The S.Ct. was created by the Constitution. See Marbury v. Madison regarding how they perceive their role as defined by the Constitution.

so you're saying that a supreme court decision can render the constitution to mean something it never intended? or should we take the decision to mean exactly what it says, that any law violative of the consitution is null and void? maybe you should read jeffersons quote in my signature.