A law lesson for attorney general candidates from Cliff Jackson | Arkansas Blog

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

A law lesson for attorney general candidates from Cliff Jackson

Posted By on Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:25 AM

I liked a letter to the editor from Cliff Jackson, a Hot Springs lawyer with a certain degree of notoriety for past political activities. He comments on the Republican primary race for attorney general and their woeful comments on constitutional law as applied in the famous same-sex marriage case. The floor to Cliff (a Rockefeller Republican back in the day and later a tormentor of Bill Clinton):

Regarding the same-sex marriage ruling, GOP Attorney General candidate David Sterling told the Hot Springs GOP: “what really offends me is the fact that he found that the constitutional provision was unconstitutional.”

Duh! The Civil War should have, but did not, settle the “states rights” argument that states can enact and enforce laws in violation or “nullification” of the federal Constitution and its rights. Only a Know Nothing demagogue appealing to the peanut gallery would contend otherwise. Does David Sterling not recall Orval Faubus and Central High School or the host of U.S. Supreme Court cases that he, as Arkansas Attorney General, would be sworn to uphold?

For example, in Loving vs. Virginia, the landmark 1967 case striking down state miscegenation (interracial) marriage laws, the state made similar arguments: states rights plus a re-hash of contentions rejected in Brown vs. Board of Education, the anti-segregation school ruling. The state, Virginia argued, had a compelling interest to “protect the institution of marriage”, thereby trumping federal due process and equal protection rights for all citizens of “mixed marriages”. If interracial marriage laws were voided, Virginia argued, what would prevent polygamous, incestuous, and imbecilic marriages?

The bottom line is this, and David Sterling should know it: If Arkansas is to regulate the institution of marriage, then it must abide by the United States Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedents. No Arkansas law or even a constitutional amendment passed by the people themselves contravening federal law and rights can stand. Under due process and equal protection, Arkansas must treat all people equally barring some compelling and over-riding state interest that would justify trampling people’s fundamental right to marriage.

Protecting the “sanctity of marriage”, long ago shredded by Arkansas’ liberal divorce laws (the lax “general indignities” grounds and the second shortest residency requirement, sixty days behind Nevada’s thirty, in the nation), is not sufficient. Besides, how does gay marriage harm whatever is left of the “sanctity of marriage” anyway? To avoid gay marriage, should we abolish, as GOP Hot Springs Mayor Ruth Carney once suggested, all “redundant” divorce statutes and impose “Biblical laws” (divorce only for adultery)?

David Sterling’s crass pandering, echoed by another GOP AG candidate, Leslie Rutledge (“as far as that judge in Little Rock, I cannot wait—-to defend our marriages between one man and one woman”), is legally ignorant, politically exploitative, and patently unworthy of anyone who would be the chief defender of our laws.

Such incendiary anti-gay rhetoric reminds me of arch-segregationist Jim Johnson trying to “out-seg” Orval Faubus. Perhaps David Sterling and the other Republican AG candidates should go back to school for elementary history and law lessons.

MIght I add for the people flooding newspapers with letters about their outrage that judges could overrule the will of the majority of the people: Bush v. Gore.

Tags: , , , , ,


Comments (11)

Showing 1-11 of 11

Add a comment

Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-11 of 11

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

  • One dead, two wounded in early morning shooting

    KARK's Susanne Brunner reports that one person has been killed and two wounded in a shooting shortly after 1 a.m. this morning near Roosevelt Road and Cross Street.
    • Apr 17, 2019
  • Reality bites at Little Rock City Hall; spending must be cut

    A followup to Rebekah Hall's earlier report on Little Rock Mayor Frank Scott Jr.'s announcement that cuts will be necessary in the city budget in part to pay for "priorities," such as his desire to expand the police force, but also to deal with the reality often mentioned here of stagnant to decling city sales tax revenue. Some quick ideas on that:
    • Apr 17, 2019
  • Speaking of hard times in newspapers: Democrat-Gazette's move to digital

    Word continues to filter in of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's pullback from statewide circulation of a print daily edition of the newspaper — the latest from the Hot Springs area, just 50 or so miles down the road from Little Rock. Subscribers there were told home delivery of a print paper would end in May.
    • Apr 16, 2019
  • More »

Readers also liked…

Most Recent Comments

  • Re: Open line

    • NVR - a single space after a period? Who knew? My thumbs double space automatically…

    • on April 19, 2019
  • Re: Open line

    • Why isn't that considered an act of war, Perplexed? Because the president of the United…

    • on April 19, 2019
  • Re: Open line

    • As bad as the Mueller report is regarding Trump and obstruction of justice, the report's…

    • on April 18, 2019

© 2019 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation