posted on Jul, 13 2013 @ 01:05 AM
Not familiar with the specifics of the oath taken by the PA AG upon swearing in, but it is common with regard to the oaths taken by elected state
officials to preserve and protect the state's constitution.
This may or may not be the case with the oath taken by the attorney general for PA.
If, however, the PA AG was required to defend the State's constitution as part of her oath of office, does that not supersede her obligation
to represent the State in favor of laws which may very well violate said constitution?
Granted, it may not be in the AG's purview to decide which laws are, or are not constitutional (that determination resides with the courts);
but it would be within the AG's duties, based on his/her oath to defend the State's constitution, to decide which laws would be
defended, and which would not be defended, by the state before the Courts, should the constitutionality of a particular law be challenged.
In California, Proposition 8 was ruled Un-constitutional not because so-called "Gay marriage" was determined to be a "right" under the
State's constitution; No one, "straight or "Gay" has a "Right" to be married under the State (or Federal constitution).
Proposition 8 was ruled to be unconstitutional because it violated the rights of All citizens to Equal Protection Under the Law
as guaranteed by the State's constitution.
This simply proved that regardless of the majority supporting a particular law, that law cannot be considered to be valid if it stands in opposition
to the rights and freedoms constitutionally guaranteed to all citizens.
And THAT determination is made by the courts as final arbiter.
Consider the outcome if, in some nightmare future, Christians are, by popular vote, declared enemies of Society to be hunted down and executed.
Would we be having this same discussion, despite the fact that a majority of the legitimate voting public had cast their ballots in favor of such a
Would anyone argue that a AG should defend the law condemning thousands of otherwise innocent people to death?
Would the courts be guilty of "legislating from the Bench" if they were to determine that such a law, despite the popular vote that passed it, was
in fact, unconstitutional because it deprived the targeted Christians of their Equal Protection Under the Law?