Should the AG defend laws he doesn't agree with?

[rockmom]

A tough question to answer with a simple yes/no.

 

Yes, it is a primary responsibility of the AG to represent the Commonwealth in court........but tax dollars and other resources must also be used in an efficient manner, and there are choice to made in this regard.

 

The AG does not always challenge legal rulings that overturn laws that have been on the books for years, so if a new Statute will not survive a Constitutional challenge per already established precedent must the AG proceed with challenge?

 

I think I could argue either position. If I was AG rather than say "Sorry, I'm out" I may say something to the effect of "It's not a good use of our appropriated funds to defend this unconstitutional statute, but I will assist the legislature in defending this legislation when an appropriate funding source has been determined."

 

Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't see it as a yes or no answer.

[Jumper_Dad]

So if the AG decided to not enforce some laws that's OK with some of you?

 

The AG is the top Law Enforcement Agent in a state or the United States...in that way they are very much like other Law Enforcement, in that their job is to ENFORCE the laws as they are written. Imagine if Police Officers had the leeway to ignore some laws they just didn't like...well the AG is the TOP COP in each state and this country and should not ignore those laws.

 

If the AG doesn't agree with a law they have the ability to take that law before the Supreme Court of their state or of the US and challenge it. They are however Sworn to defend those law, each and everyone...not just the ones they agree with or think will further their political ambitions.

 

The AG of the state doesn't work for the Governor or the Senate but does work for the people that elected that Senate that passed the laws. It is his job as the AG to defend the laws passed by the Senate...after all that's part of his job and what is expected. Should the Tax Payers have to pay for an outside Counsel to do the job the AG has been elected to do?

[Bipsic]

So an elected AG can pick and choose but an appointed AG shouldn't? Is that the world of difference you refer to?

 

If it's truly the difference between elected and appointed should all elected officials have discretion to decide what parts of their jobs they can decline to do based on personal beliefs?

 

Certainly you can see that there are things in this world that can be something other than lily white or jet black. The federal AG is nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and part of the Executive Branch. The Kentucky AG is voted in by the citizens of the Commonwealth. Surely him doing his job is as much a will of the people as the Governor or legislators doing theirs. Otherwise, wouldn't it be quite a bit easier for Bevin or the Senate to hire the best First Amendment lawyers for some issues or the best labor attorneys for something else, etc...

 

I'm certainly never going to fault a guy for choosing not to dedicate his office's resources and our tax dollars trying to defend a law the fairly clearly would be deemed unconstitutional.

 

It should also be added that your original post of "simple question" is just a bit disingenuous. For one, if Beshear was indeed pro-abortion like every liberal must be, surely he would disagree with the ultrasound provision which he stated he would defend. And second, you had a much better argument a year or two ago. Do you at least see the difference between Conway disagreeing with the gay marriage issue and Beshear not wanting to defend a patently unconstitutional law?

[All Tell]

Certainly you can see that there are things in this world that can be something other than lily white or jet black. The federal AG is nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate and part of the Executive Branch. The Kentucky AG is voted in by the citizens of the Commonwealth. Surely him doing his job is as much a will of the people as the Governor or legislators doing theirs. Otherwise, wouldn't it be quite a bit easier for Bevin or the Senate to hire the best First Amendment lawyers for some issues or the best labor attorneys for something else, etc...

 

I'm certainly never going to fault a guy for choosing not to dedicate his office's resources and our tax dollars trying to defend a law the fairly clearly would be deemed unconstitutional.

 

It should also be added that your original post of "simple question" is just a bit disingenuous. For one, if Beshear was indeed pro-abortion like every liberal must be, surely he would disagree with the ultrasound provision which he stated he would defend. And second, you had a much better argument a year or two ago. Do you at least see the difference between Conway disagreeing with the gay marriage issue and Beshear not wanting to defend a patently unconstitutional law?

 

No I really don't see a difference. Conway opted not to do his job, he should have resigned, the same goes for Beshear. The will of the people elected the legislature that passed this law, by not defending it an argument can be made that Beshear is ignoring the will of the people.

 

Have limits on late term abortions been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? A quick Google search tells me no. I did see that such bans must have provisions for victims of rape and incest and KY's currently doesn't. But it also says the the entire laws do not have to be struck down if that provision is added. Wouldn't the AG have been better served advising that rather then just refusing to defend the law outright? I in fact found a Beshear quote where he seems to contradict himself. LINK

 

“It is also my duty,” he said, “to defend laws where the constitutionality is questionable and finality is needed.”

[Bipsic]

No I really don't see a difference. Conway opted not to do his job, he should have resigned, the same goes for Beshear. The will of the people elected the legislature that passed this law, by not defending it an argument can be made that Beshear is ignoring the will of the people.

 

Have limits on late term abortions been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? A quick Google search tells me no. I did see that such bans must have provisions for victims of rape and incest and KY's currently doesn't. But it also says the the entire laws do not have to be struck down if that provision is added. Wouldn't the AG have been better served advising that rather then just refusing to defend the law outright? I in fact found a Beshear quote where he seems to contradict himself. LINK

 

I guess it depends on your definition of late term abortion. Are you talking a specific trimester or week or is it that any time period is late term because it kills a living being (which is a completely valid opinion to have)?

 

As far as the 20 week law goes, The Supreme Court couldn't be more clear that a law cannot place an undue burden on a women seeking an abortion pre-viability. 20 weeks is close to a month before the most lenient definition of viability. Additionally, it was like 7 months ago that the Court struck down A Texas law with a majority that would hold up regardless of whoever Trump nominates.

 

Honestly, I'm really not debating abortion laws, but defending a patently unconstitutional law is an exercise in futility and a waste of tax dollars and government resources, especially in light of the constant budget cuts.