Earlier this week, Democratic candidate for Attorney General, Don Quick, said that the attorney general shouldn’t enforce certain laws – he specifically cited a law that Colorado voters passed that banned gay marriage. Here’s a “quick” tutorial on the difference between running for the legislature and running to be Colorado’s AG: the former makes the laws, while the latter enforces them. To pick and choose which laws you enforce is to violate any number of fundamental principles our society is founded on, chief among them, the separation of powers. According to Ivan Moreno with the AP:
…the former Adams County district attorney and former deputy state attorney general, emphasized that those positions have a responsibility to defend state laws regardless of whether the officeholder agrees with them.
…He said that if a law is unconstitutional, “the attorney general has an obligation to say so,” and he urged current Republican Attorney General John Suthers to stop defending Colorado’s constitutional ban on gay marriage, which voters passed in 2006.
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule whether state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. [the Peak emphasis]
So, not only does Quick want a “litigation veto” that allows him to pick and choose laws, but he also believes himself wise enough to figure out what laws are constitutional and which ones aren’t; which is pretty amazing as the U.S. Supreme Court itself had a chance to rule on these issues last summer but declined to do so at that time. Talk about having an ego.
This issue is whether we want an Imperial Attorney General (see Obama: “I can do anything I want”), who through his great wisdom and all-knowing power, can discern what is best for the people of Colorado despite whatever they might say or what the legislature has to say. If Quick feels so passionately about deciding and creating laws—instead of enforcing them—he should run for the legislature. As is, he’s just an embarrassment to the rule of law.
All those who vote third party will be aiding and abetting Quick's unlawfulness.
Pete Kolbenschlag Are you homophobic or something? Your really getting boring. You still haven't answered an earlier question I asked and your attempts at trying to get some kind of reaction out of me so you can call me homophobic are juvenile. The usual tactic of a leftist moron to take control of a debate is to answer a question with another totally unrelated question. Thanks for identifying yourself so easily.
Clay Watts so by 'traditional' marriage you mean as understood between sometime after 1970 but before the gay thing?
Pete Kolbenschlag Another asinine post. Where, pray tell, did I state that it's okay to rape my wife?
Clay Watts "The criminalization of marital rape in the United States started in the mid-1970s and by 1993 marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, under at least one section of the sexual offense codes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_(United_States_law)
Pete Kolbenschlag So now I can disregard what you say or think. That was an asinine statement.
Clay Watts So you believe women are property and that a husband cannot rape his wife?
Pete Kolbenschlag Where's the Unequal protection? What 'special' protection is afforded to traditional marriage that gays are missing out on? I'm all for a law allowing Gay partners the same right as a Married straight couple, but I am a traditionalist, and the traditional definition of marriage has been between a man and a Woman. If the Gay movement can't respect my opinion how can they expect me to respect theirs?
Clay Watts Right, like equal protection under the law, equivalent to the 2A (also an amendment to the US Constitution).
No Pete Kolbenschlag, we call that obeying the oath of office. You know, the part that says "protect and defend he Constituion of the United States."
So you believe that sheriffs deciding not to enforce the new gun safety measures are imperial violators of their sacred obligations…?