Does an oath of office mean anything? To John Suthers it does.
In a Denver Post article following the recent McDonald v Chicago Supreme Court gun rights case, Stan Garnett, Democrat nominee to run for Attorney General of the State of Colorado against incumbent John Suthers, criticized Suthers' having submitted a brief, "along with state attorneys general throughout the West", in support of the plaintiffs and the 2nd Amendment.
From the article:
Garnett said he would not have filed a brief in support of plaintiffs seeking to overturn local gun laws in Illinois.
"I think it's a waste of time and resources for the Colorado attorney general to wander around the country jumping into other people's fights," he said.
Mr. Garnett's thinking is symptomatic of the majority of American politicians these days (especially Democrats) -- though thankfully John Suthers appears to be an exception -- for whom an oath of office is worth less than the paper it's written on.
So, let's remind Mr. Garnett and other "liberals" out there what an oath is and says. Have a look at John Suthers' most recently sworn-to Oath of Office:
Suthers swears to "support the Constitution of the United States..."
When the Constitution is under attack anywhere, it is under attack everywhere. An attack as severe as a city saying they will not abide by a Supreme Court decision because they believe it doesn't apply to them is one that demands all who have taken such an oath (and perhaps all who haven't) to at least consider offering any assistance they can to defeat that city. The rule of law is at stake. If not to uphold the rule of law, what is the purpose of an Attorney General?
Suthers' participation in the brief is absolutely consistent with, indeed required by, his oath of office.
Garnett's statement that it's not our problem shows him unfit to be this state's highest law enforcement officer.
|Print article||This entry was posted by Rossputin on 07/02/10 at 05:32:09 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.|