Is Bysiewicz eyeing the Gov’s race again?
The “does the AG have to be a lawyer” circus won’t end. SOTS Bysiewicz has followed through on her promise to seek a formal opinion from the current AG (and next Senator from CT) Blumenthal.
I don’t understand this. No one has challenged her qualifications – legally – yet. One candidate, George Jepsen, has said he isn’t going to ever.
The request for an opinion brings forth some very interesting facts regarding the AG statute:
Bysiewicz wants to know if that section adopted in 1897 is “constitutional,” since it wasn’t until 1970 that the constitution was amended to make the attorney general one of the state’s constitutional officers.
“The Constitution contains no requirement for the office of the Attorney General,” Bysiewicz writes.
Then in 1980 the constitution was amended again to say “Every elector who has attained the age of eighteen years shall be eligible to any office in the state.”
In light of the constitutional provisions Bysiewicz wondered if the statute that talks about active practice is still in effect “or is it superseded by the subsequent constitutional amendments?”
And when push comes to shove Bysiewicz wants to know who will make the determination of whether the requirement of 10 years of active practice has been satisfied.
So why do this now? Why create a problem when there isn’t one?
I think there’s only one answer. She wants to know now, so she can get out quickly if she has to. And so she can then jump back into the race for Governor.
What do you think?
Yes.
It’s not just the amendments or the definition of the AG as a “constitutional officer” — the unamended constitution read that:
So it would have spoken to even those elected positions not defined in the Constitution itself, such as AG prior to 1970.
I think she asked not because she’s contemplating running for Governor, but because she expects Blumenthal not to even reach the “active practice” question in his response.
The statute was enacted in 1897 apparently. So at some point someone thought that should be a requirement.
His opinion will be interesting, to say the least.
Could someone provide a phonetic spelling of this candidate’s name? I even tried pronouncing it with mush in my mouth, but I don’t think it’s helping much…
Notice how she put her own handwriting across the letter “Richard.” Why not just say Dear “Biased Friend of Mine . . .”
That’s hilarious.