Comments on: I’m Looking for a Lawyer

By: C. M. Irving

C. M. Irving — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 05:01:46 +0000

I also feel that this pledge is unconstitutional on several fronts.
1. It denies the due process rights of my vote by
allowing an extra-governmental entity who
not duly elected to over-ride my
ability to petition the representative of my
district.
2. It circumvents the Constitutional process for
creating a bill and the parliamentary process
of the legislative body to bring those issues to
the public record for the voters to review.
The problem is not about this pledge representing an oath; as it is having the force of a contract entered into between two individuals over the general rights of the body politic.

By: Deborah

Deborah — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 17:21:05 +0000

I don’t necessarily agree that a lawsuit should be filed to determine the constitutionality of this pledge, but I do believe that this pledge is unconstitutional. It should concern every voter, whether you agree with the spirit of the pledge or not, that your elected representatives would take any oath other than their Oath of Office or recite any pledge other than the one to our Flag.

By: Reality Check

Reality Check — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 19:38:36 +0000

Perhaps the best example yet of the breathtaking level of naivete of this author (there are so many to choose from!)

‘Asks the right questions’? For a side-bar discussion amongst back-bench peanut munchers, perhaps. Can you spell: g-e-t-a-c-l-u-e ?

By: AnnMarie Schneider

AnnMarie Schneider — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:22:26 +0000

If we DO host a con-con, Rick Cole would be my top choice to moderate! You ask the right questions:)

By: Richard McLellan

Richard McLellan — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 13:56:55 +0000

Rick, you should have a lawyer check your columns before you hit send. The constitutional oath of office is a legally significant act. The ATR pledge is a politcal act used by a pressure group in elections; it is not an oath.

Whether and how a candidate signals his or her intentions regarding taxes if elected is a core issue in the 2010 and almost every campaign. Let the voters decide which approach — raise taxes or cut spending — is appropriate.

What we do not need is someone cluttering up our courts with a “class action lawsuit to prevent anyone… who has taken the ATR pledge…from taking the oath necessary to assume the Office of Governor….”

By: Dan Wholihan

Dan Wholihan — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:23:12 +0000

There’s no lawsuit needed here. This is a pledge taken by some candidates. Whether the candidates keep their promises or not by vetoing tax increases will be determined when the time comes.

I will be voting against candidates who don’t sign the pledge. It’s time our government makes the same sacrifices the private sector has been forced to make the past 7 years. We need jobs, not more taxes, not more gimmick tax shifts, not more user fee increases, not more regulations and not more government.

By: Richard Cole

Richard Cole — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:01:07 +0000

I welcome Paul and Rebecca, and all others — and this comment string will help create the record of the list. And, Greg, whether or not we end up with a con-con, I would think that the kind of prohibition you suggest against conflicting oaths of any kind might be a constitutional amendment the public could support. Thanks.

By: Rebecca Bahar-Cook

Rebecca Bahar-Cook — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:18:38 +0000

Ditto Paul’s comment

By: Paul Massaron

Paul Massaron — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:49:39 +0000

I am not an attorney either, but if it is possible, I would gladly join you in this lawsuit.

By: Greg Morris

Greg Morris — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:37:52 +0000

Rick, this is a great perspective. Obviously, the solution lies in the probable upcoming Constitutional Convention. The \Con Con\ should develop a provision which precludes anyone who wins an election to a state office from taking such office if they have prevoiusly made a pledge that would impede thier ability to carry out the duties of said office.