pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Metcalfe calls for Kane's impeachment
#1
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2...1310260040

Quote:HARRISBURG -- When state Attorney General Kathleen Kane announced she would not defend Pennsylvania's law banning same-sex marriage, Republicans said she was abdicating her duty.

Now, one conservative lawmaker says her decision is grounds for impeachment.

State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, told fellow lawmakers in a memo this week that Ms. Kane, a Democrat, has created a "constitutional crisis" and that he would introduce a resolution containing articles of impeachment.

In an interview, Mr. Metcalfe said he is preparing the resolution because he believes Ms. Kane engaged in "misbehavior in office" -- the basis for impeachment in the Constitution -- by leaving the Corbett administration to defend against a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of same-sex couples.

"The issue is should an attorney general be allowed to say she's not going to defend the constitutionality of a law she disagrees with when the law of Pennsylvania says the attorney general shall defend the constitutionality of all Pennsylvania laws," he said. "This is not partisan. This is not about politics, as she's out to make it. This is about the rule of law, plain and simple."

Mr. Metcalfe is known as a conservative firebrand whose declarations are not always backed by Republican leadership. But caucus higher-ups were not entirely dismissive of the impeachment idea. House Speaker Sam Smith believes the topic is "worth consideration," said spokesman Steve Miskin.

Mr. Metcalfe said he had received inquiries from "a couple" of lawmakers seeking to add their name to the resolution, which he said he will introduce in November.

A day after the memo circulated, Ms. Kane, through her office, issued a lengthy statement saying, in part, that Pennsylvanians should "be revolted that a politician such as Rep. Metcalfe is attempting to thwart an independent attorney general from doing her job."

She suggested "Rep. Metcalfe's call for impeachment should instead be an opportunity for his own introspection."

Chris Borick, a professor of political science at Muhlenberg College, said the claim behind Mr. Metcalfe's call for impeachment is unusual in that the lawmaker holds not that the attorney general has broken the law, but that she has failed to meet the constitutional requirements of her job.

~snip~
Reply
#2
She'll get away with it because she's siding with the flavor of the week in protected/preferred class.

And Metcalfe will be the one who loses his job over it.

The fact that she's NOT enforcing the law of the state or fulfilling her job in accordance with it will never come into play--all you'll hear is "Banning gay marriage is wrong, mmmkay?" and the media will rally to her defense. She may even get a visit from Obama.

Of course, nobody cares about the precedent that's being set--if you're in a position of power and disagree with the laws of the state constitution you can simply avoid being held to it as a matter of conscience. And if enough people agree with you, you're golden.

Then why stop at the state constitutions? Surely it applies to the federal constitution as well, and after another Sandy Hook..."Guns are bad, mmmkay?" and so on.
Vampire pig man since September 2012
Reply
#3
Camper;124305 Wrote:She'll get away with it because she's siding with the flavor of the week in protected/preferred class.

And Metcalfe will be the one who loses his job over it.

The fact that she's NOT enforcing the law of the state or fulfilling her job in accordance with it will never come into play--all you'll hear is "Banning gay marriage is wrong, mmmkay?" and the media will rally to her defense. She may even get a visit from Obama.

Of course, nobody cares about the precedent that's being set--if you're in a position of power and disagree with the laws of the state constitution you can simply avoid being held to it as a matter of conscience. And if enough people agree with you, you're golden.

Then why stop at the state constitutions? Surely it applies to the federal constitution as well, and after another Sandy Hook..."Guns are bad, mmmkay?" and so on.

Didn't Obama already set the precedent at the Federal level? Only difference is he didn't care whether or not enough people agreed with him. He just got the media to print that the public sides with him and everything was golden.
The law? The law is a human institution...
Reply
#4
Yep. Since there's no recall mechanism, I'm with him 100%.
"In 4 more OMao years you won't like how America looks....I guarantee it."
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#5
Tell her to find another job.
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#6
It's official, a resolution for impeachment of Kane was introduced yesterday.

Quote:
HOUSE RESOLUTION
No.
572
Session of
2013




INTRODUCED BY METCALFE, BLOOM, EVERETT, MCGINNIS, SWANGER AND TALLMAN, DECEMBER 19, 2013


REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, DECEMBER 19, 2013



A RESOLUTION


1Impeaching Kathleen G. Kane, Attorney General of Pennsylvania,
2for misbehavior in office.
3BE IT RESOLVED, That Kathleen G. Kane, Attorney General of
4Pennsylvania, be impeached for misbehavior in office and that
5the following Articles of Impeachment be exhibited to the
6Senate:
7ARTICLE I
8On July 11, 2013, Attorney General Kane held a public press
9conference at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia
10to announce that she would not defend a Federal lawsuit
11challenging a lawfully enacted Pennsylvania statute. Only two
12days earlier, a civil action captioned as Whitewood v. Corbett
13was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
14District of Pennsylvania. The civil action challenged the
15constitutionality of Act 124 of 1996, which defined "marriage"
16in this Commonwealth as "a civil contract by which one man and
17one woman take each other for husband and wife" and which denied
18recognition of same-sex marriages conducted in other states.
20130HR0572PN2832 -1-

1Section 204(a)(3) of the act of October 15, 1980 (P.L.950,
2No.164), known as the Commonwealth Attorneys Act, states: "It
3shall be the duty of the Attorney General to uphold and defend
4the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their
5suspension or abrogation in the absence of a controlling
6decision by a court of competent jurisdiction." This is a
7mandatory duty imposed on the Attorney General, who under
8Article IV, Section 4.1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution is
9required to "exercise such powers and perform such duties as may
10be imposed by law."
11No court of competent jurisdiction ruled that the definition
12of marriage contained in Act 124 of 1996 is unconstitutional
13before Attorney General Kane announced that she refused to
14defend the civil action challenging the statute. The United
15States Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor declared the
16Federal Defense of Marriage Act, which similarly defined a
17marriage as a contract between a man and a woman, to be
18unconstitutional on the grounds that the Federal Government
19improperly intruded upon the states' "historic and essential
20authority to define the marital relation." The Windsor decision
21in no way adjudicated whether a state statute defining marriage
22as exclusively between a man and a woman violates due process or
23equal protection of law.
24Despite her mandatory duty to uphold and defend the
25constitutionality of a lawfully enacted statute, Attorney
26General Kane refused to defend Act 124 of 1996 on the basis of
27her personal opinion that the statute is "wholly
28unconstitutional." The Commonwealth Attorneys Act allows the
29Attorney General, "upon determining that it is more efficient or
30otherwise is in the best interest of the Commonwealth, to

20130HR0572PN2832 -2-

1authorize" the Governor's General Counsel to defend any
2particular litigation. Attorney General Kane never consulted
3with the Governor's General Counsel with regard to efficiency or
4the best interest of the Commonwealth before refusing to defend
5Act 124 of 1996 and there is no reason why the Governor's
6General Counsel is better equipped to defend the Whitewood
7litigation than the Office of Attorney General.
8After Attorney General Kane's public announcement in
9Philadelphia, the Montgomery County Register of Wills began to
10issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing Attorney
11General Kane's announcement to support his lawful authority to
12do so.
13Wherefore, Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane is guilty of an
14impeachable offense warranting removal from office and
15disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under
16this Commonwealth.
17ARTICLE II
18During her public press conference in Philadelphia on July
1911, 2013, Attorney General Kane declared her opinion that Act
20124 of 1996 is "wholly unconstitutional." Attorney General Kane
21made this public statement two days after the filing of the
22lawsuit challenging Act 124 of 1996 and with full knowledge that
23several Commonwealth officials, including Attorney General Kane,
24were named as defendants in the lawsuit.
25Attorney General Kane's public declaration that the statute
26is unconstitutional contravenes not only her constitutional and
27statutory duty to uphold and defend lawfully enacted statutes,
28but also her ethical responsibilities as an attorney in this
29Commonwealth. Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct,
30applicable to all attorneys in this Commonwealth, bars any

20130HR0572PN2832 -3-

1attorney associated with litigation from making an extrajudicial
2statement that the attorney reasonably knows or should know will
3be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a
4substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative
5proceeding. Before formally delivering the Whitewood litigation
6to the Governor's General Counsel, Attorney General Kane made a
7public statement that Act 124 of 1996 is "wholly
8unconstitutional" despite the ongoing litigation and the clear
9harm such statement would inflict on the Commonwealth officials
10named as defendants in the Whitewood litigation and on the
11defense of the presumptively constitutional statute.
12Wherefore, Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane is guilty of an
13impeachable offense warranting removal from office and
14disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under
15this Commonwealth.
16The House of Representatives hereby reserves to itself the
17right and ability to exhibit at any time hereafter further
18Articles of Impeachment against Attorney General Kathleen G.
19Kane, to reply to any answers that Attorney General Kathleen G.
20Kane may make to any Articles of Impeachment which are exhibited
21and to offer proof at trial in the Senate in support of each and
22every Article of Impeachment which shall be exhibited by them.
20130HR0572PN2832 -4-
Reply
#7
Only 5 cosponsors in the House?


Yeah, this bill is going places.
Reply
#8
Isn't it her job as AG to defend constitutional laws? If she refuses, isn't that dereliction of duty? Shrug

Sadly, too few have the temerity to do their job to hold her to it.

The clock is ticking. Has been for a while. . . .
I don't suffer from insanity.
I enjoy every minute of it.
Reply
#9
Just curious, how many people who are against Kane (for the record, I am not a fan of Kane and did not vote for her nor will I ever) and support impeaching her for ignoring this law, support the various sheriffs in Colorado and New York who have vowed to ignore the gun control laws the states have put in place?

If you do I am curious what the rational is. Why support one government official for not following their state laws, but not support another for not following their state law?
Everytime we look the other way when someone else loses rights we disagree with, we make it easier to lose the rights we support.

Reply
#10
I can't stand her.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Peters Ralph Calls Obama a ‘Total Pussy’ on Live Television das 8 2,515 12-12-2015, 04:38 PM
Last Post: 39Flathead
  Attorney General Kane injured in auto accident soberbyker 6 1,185 11-01-2014, 08:28 PM
Last Post: soberbyker
  Pelosi calls surge of illegal immigrant children an ‘opportunity’ das 8 1,122 06-30-2014, 05:58 PM
Last Post: Pocketprotector
  Affirmative action lawyer calls Supreme Court decision on Michigan schools 'racist' das 5 1,139 04-28-2014, 12:39 PM
Last Post: bigdawgbeav
  Union calls for TSA agents to be armed Philadelphia Patriot 4 689 11-06-2013, 09:42 AM
Last Post: gascolator



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.