Comments on: Is Susan Bysiewicz Legally Qualified To Serve As Attorney General?

By: Round up Julia Tashjian and Miles Rapoport. — Daily Ructions

Round up Julia Tashjian and Miles Rapoport. — Daily Ructions — Mon, 17 May 2010 19:14:29 +0000

[...] questioned the credentials of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in her buckshot response to persistent questions. She says he wouldn’t have qualified without counting his 4 years as U.S. Attorney in the [...]

By: Did Bysiewicz Pay the Fare? — Daily Ructions

Did Bysiewicz Pay the Fare? — Daily Ructions — Mon, 17 May 2010 19:14:13 +0000

[...] abrupt shift from the race for governor to the one for attorney general. Ryan McKeen at A Connecticut Law Blog (served with a side of baseball) raises the question of whether Bysiewicz meeter the the 10 years [...]

By: Noble Lister

Noble Lister — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 07:19:54 +0000

i dont know how i discovered your blog as a result of i used to be looking details about politics, but anyway, i had a pleasant time reading it, keep write it

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:53:09 +0000

I hope she’s been paying the Lawyers Occupational Tax all these years if indeed she is deemed to have been engaged in the practice of law.

By: Arkie

Arkie — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:59:26 +0000

Let’s cut through the fog and get to the point:

1. Susan likely was an active member of the CT bar between her Aetna tenure and her swearing in as SOTS. That would get her to about 12 years, certainly over 10.
2. The language of the statute is vague as to whether the 10 years’ service need be continuous to the present day, such that I think it unlikely that this standard would be construed so as to exclude her from eligibility.
3. Joe L. was likely an active member of the CT bar during his legislative tenure so that he would have been eligible per the statute.
4. I’m curious when the statute was enacted and haven’t the time to research it. Does anyone know?

The statute, moreover, should be amended to include service in statewide or legislative office or as a FT mayor/first selcectperson and experience which counts, for instance:

“The Attorney General shall be an elector of this state who for ten years shall have been either an attorney at law of active practice at the bar of this state, a member of a house of the General Assembly, a statewide, elective constititional officer or the Mayor or First Selectperson in the full-time, paid employ of any municipality within the State of Connecticut.”

Whether or not one supports her, the notion that Susan somehow is not qualified to serve as AG is, to my mind, in the real world, ridiculous.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:48:50 +0000

I now see that in one of your other postings you noted the bit about not having to be an attorney to sit on the Supreme Court and also asked whether a nonattorneys holding the office of Attorney General would be practicing law without a license. The answer clearly depends on what the individual actually does. It seems reasonable to maintain that at a minimum he or she could not appear as an advocate in court, but it’s possible and common for nonattorneys to supervise attorneys in business and government. I don’t think it would be very tough for a layman in that office to stay on the right side of the practicing-law line, especially with a staff of admitted attorneys to give him or her constant guidance.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:08:59 +0000

Absolutely. The Connecticut Constitution is very democratic in that regard. Apart from an age requirement, the voters can elect anyone they want for any office. Heck, we have a former nurse serving as comptroller (not that I have any reason to suggest she doesn’t know what she’s doing). In the same vein, you don’t even have to be an attorney to be confirmed as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, not that I expect that would ever get past the Senate (though I believe some members of the court over the years, though they were attorneys, did not attend law school; howappealing.law.com reports that the last such was Justice Byrnes).

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:19:18 +0000

So a non-attorney can serve as attorney general?

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:25:39 +0000

Ryan,

That’s nonsense. Did you read the pertinent parts of the Constitution? Section 10 of Article Sixth states that “Every elector shall be eligible to any office in the state, except in cases provided for in this constitution.” This clause was part of the current Constitution, which was adopted by public referendum in December, 1965, and was amended in 1970 to require the elector be age 21 and then in 1984, to be age 18. Focus on the phrase “except in cases provided for in this constitution.” The only such case is the requirement that the governor and lieutenant governor be at least age 30. The Constitution always trumps inconsistent statutes. No statute, whether existing prior to the adoption of the Constitution or subsequently passed, can amend the Constitution, otherwise it wouldn’t be the … Constitution. Since Section 10 requires only that the office holder be an elector and age 18, the Legislature cannot impose additional qualifications.

Where do you get this stuff that the AG is a creation of statute? When people refer to the attorney general as one of the constitutional offices, do you think they are using poetic license? See Section 1 of Article Fourth, as amended: “A general election for governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary of the state, treasurer, comptroller and attorney general shall be held on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, 1974, and quadrennially thereafter.”

And by the way, the Legislature does not amend the Constitution. It can only propose amendments, which then must be adopted by a majority vote of the electorate. See Article Twelfth.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:21:07 +0000

Oh Eric. The statute was enacted in 1902. The constitutional amendment was passed in 1980. The legislature is presumed to know its statutes at the time it amends the constitution. If the intent of the legislature was to lift the 10 year requirement from the AG statute then they should have repealed the statute at the same time. The fact that they didn’t requires a court to construe the provisions consistently. Further, the AG’s office is a creature of statute. The constitution does not define the role of AG – statutes do. If an 18 year old had 10 years of active practice at the CT Bar, she would be eligible to serve as AG.

Chris Powell doesn’t know what he’s talking about.