Del. Don Dwyer doing a media interview outside the Statehouse yesterday shortly after the marriage equality bill passed second reading
Showing posts with label Don Dwyer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Don Dwyer. Show all posts
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Photo: Marriage Equality Opponent Don Dwyer Speaks to the Press
Del. Don Dwyer doing a media interview outside the Statehouse yesterday shortly after the marriage equality bill passed second reading
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Attorney General and Impeachment
By Marc Korman.
Shortly after Attorney General Doug Gansler issued an opinion regarding recognition of out of state gay marriages, Anne Arundel County Republican Delegate Don Dwyer issued a press release entitled:
“DELEGATE DWYER TO IMPEACH ATTORNEY GENERAL DOUG GANSLER”
While condemning the Attorney General’s legal opinion, Delegate Dwyer seems to have made a few mistakes about the law himself.
Delegate Dwyer is confused about the law in two respects: impeachment and Attorney General opinions.
Impeachment
Delegate Dwyer has expressed an interest in introducing articles of impeachment against the Attorney General. But even a cursory review of Article V of the Maryland Constitution reveals that the General Assembly cannot remove an Attorney General. Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution specifically says that the Attorney General is subject to removal “for incompetency, willful neglect of duty or misdemeanor in office, on conviction in a court of law.” The conviction in a court of law is the central element there, meaning the legislature is not the major actor.
Article III, Section 26 of the Constitution does reserve the sole power of impeachment to the House of Delegates and it is not clear to authorities if Attorneys General fall under the provision. The other statewide elected officials, the Governor and Comptroller, have specific impeachment and removal provisions about them in the Constitution that reference the General Assembly. The Attorney General does not.
Assuming that the Attorney General can be impeached under the General Assembly’s impeachment power, they cannot be removed by the legislature based on Article V. So perhaps Delegate Dwyer can impeach the Attorney General, but it would be meaningless as the sole power to remove him belongs to a court.
But do not take my word for it. The Attorney General’s office issued a letter on the issue, primarily based from my own source, Friedman’s The Maryland State Constitution: A Reference Guide.
Of course, even assuming the General Assembly can impeach the Attorney General it is readily apparent that Delegate Dwyer cannot do so himself. So the title of his press release is a little bit self-centered.
Opinions
But besides coming to a different legal conclusion than Delegate Dwyer, who apparently has not read the Maryland Constitution, what would Delegate Dwyer be impeaching the Attorney General for?
As far as I can tell, Delegate Dwyer wants to remove the Attorney General for following his Constitutional duty. Article V, Section 3(a)(4) of the Maryland Constitution specifically says the Attorney General shall “issue his opinion in writing whenever required by the General Assembly.” That has been interpreted as authorizing the Attorney General to answer specific inquiries by legislators. Those opinions have proven invaluable in allowing the government to operate without waiting for court decisions, particularly since courts do not issue advisory rulings and must wait for actual suits or prosecutions before issuing opinions on constitutional questions.
Why is Delegate Dwyer so upset with the Attorney General for fulfilling his constitutional obligations? Simply because he disagrees with the result the Attorney General reached, not because Gansler did anything wrong. Voters do not look kindly upon that type of abuse of the impeachment process, as Republicans should remember from their ridiculed effort to impeach Bill Clinton, who left office with higher approval ratings than Ronald Reagan.
The Attorney General issued a well reasoned, thorough opinion. But it is only an opinion and not the law of the land. For the record, I believe the opinion is spot on and hope to see it followed. But if Delegate Dwyer believes Gansler is wrong, the proper response is not impeachment. The two proper responses are to seek a change in the law, which he has failed to do because the General Assembly does not support him, or challenge the opinion in court once the state begins to rely on it. How action in the legislature and the courts unfolds will be the real test of whether the Attorney General’s legal opinion was correct, not rhetoric-filled, legally questionable cries for impeachment.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Del. Dwyer Terrorizes Committee Witnesses
Del. Don Dwyer (R - Anne Arundel) has found a new way to simultaneously silence those who disagree with him and strike terror into a community whom he seems to despise: Threaten to have them arrested when they come to Annapolis to testify on a bill.
According to the Annapolis newspaper The Capital, Dwyer's latest over-the-top conduct occurred at a March 20 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, which he is a member of. The subject was a bill that would require proof of citizenship or legal residency to get a driver's license. One of the organizations opposed to the legislation and bringing people to testify against it was Casa de Maryland.
According to The Capital:Casa de Maryland provides services to immigrants regardless of their status, and representatives at past rallies have refused to say whether their supporters were in the country legally. ...
"This is a building of law and order," [Dwyer] said. "I think we ought to maintain it."
So during the hearing, Dwyer announced that he had called the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (formerly INS) to come and arrest anyone there who was not in the country legally.ICE agents declined to come to the hearing because they cannot inquire about someone's immigration status unless they see a law being broken, according to Mr. Dwyer's staff. ...
Mr. Dwyer said he was not trying to stop people from testifying, but he was wondering what rights an illegal immigrant would have before the committee.
"If they are here illegally, I'm not sure they have any rights," he said.
"I'm not sure they have any rights." It scares me that a legislator actually believes that there are people in our society who have no rights.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
It's Just Not That Strange, George
The Washington Post just carried an article in which Montgomery County Council Member George Leventhal complained about a school fundraiser at McDonald's. I've got news for you, George: given what's already going on, it's just not that strange!
According to the Post, the "McTeachers Night" fundraisers feature teachers serving students at McDonald's with the schools getting a cut of the proceeds. Upon hearing about this at a council meeting, Leventhal reacted with disbelief:"Teachers are enlisted by McDonald's to work behind the cash register at McDonald's, and students are recruited to go to McDonald's that night to see their teacher dishing out the Big Macs?" he asked with horror. "I never heard of that."
Now look, George. It's seventy degrees out and it's February, and that's causing some odd behavior. Governor O'Malley and State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick kissed and made up. Immigrant-baiting Republicans are voting for John McCain for President. And even you and Marc Elrich are cooperating(!) on a bill to protect domestic workers. So maybe it's not so strange that among these oddball alliances, the teachers are teaming up with McDonald's.
About 20 minutes later, Leventhal spoke up again. "The McDonald's thing really bothers me a lot," he said, his sentiment partly fueled by a concern about childhood obesity. "I mean, I don't know if we'd have a fundraiser at the local cigarette store."
And that's not all! Looking through my inbox, I see a lot more weird things going on. Hmmm, let's go through the list of upcoming events:
March 8
Fundraiser for County Council Member Marc Elrich, Federal Realty Headquarters, Rockville, MD. Special guests: Neighborspac Executive Director Drew Powell and Doug Duncan.
March 29
Fundraiser for _______________ at Georgia Avenue/Forest Glen Road intersection, Silver Spring. (Errr, one problem with this. We can't get any politicians to appear for fear of endangering their lives at the Intersection of Death.)
April 17
Casa de Maryland hosts rally for County Executive Candidate Chuck Floyd, Wheaton. Special guests: District 18 Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez and Help Save Maryland Founder Brad Botwin. Start of petition drive calling for removal of MCPD Chief Tom Manger.
April 26
Joint Fundraiser, District 39 Senator Nancy King and Delegate Saqib Ali, Montgomery Village. Special guests: Governor O'Malley and Comptroller Franchot. Also appearing: Abraham Van Helsing and Dracula.
May 10
Reverend Donald Wildmon hosts fundraiser for District 18 Delegate Candidate Dana Beyer, Chevy Chase. Special guests: District 31 Delegate Donald Dwyer and District 18 Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher. Also appearing: Itchy and Scratchy.
Friday, March 23, 2007
MoCo Legislators Attack Anti-Gay Amendment
Equality Maryland thanked various legislators on the House Judiciary Committee for their support in killing Del. Don Dwyer's (R-Anne Arundel) constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Their email gave plaudits to a number of MoCo legislators for thanks, including Susan Lee (D-16)--a real leader in the fight for gay and lesbian rights. Other members of the committee who were thanked for challenging witnesses testifying against the amendment included:
Del. Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18) repeatedly challenged a Baptist conference leader about his interpretation of Leviticus, citing passage after passage about other biblical “abominations,” and asking the clergy member if he would support a bill to ban the consumption of shellfish, or the wearing of clothing of two different fabrics.It seems as if all those years of Hebrew School were not wasted on our new delegate here in District 18.
Del. Luiz Simmons (D-17) used his strong legal background to call out the witnesses who clamored for a “popular vote” on the issue, saying that the idea that every issue of contention in the General Assembly should go to a public referendum was silly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
