Comments on: Susan Bysiewicz Responds

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:29:27 +0000

By Bysiewicz’s rationale, is any non-attorney Secretary of State engaging in the unlicensed practice of law? His or her duties would fall withing the definition of “practicing law,” no?

By: Gideon

Gideon — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:57:18 +0000

I disagree. The Constitutional specifically says that anyone over the age of 18 can hold any office. So that must be true, because the Constitution is a 3,500 page document that is explicit on every single point of law and governance in the history of the world. Ever.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:28:44 +0000

EmGee – Brilliant!

By: matt

matt — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 03:52:26 +0000

Art. 6 Sec. 10 of the Constitution doesn’t specify only elected offices, does it?

By: Ohismith

Ohismith — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:15:49 +0000

It’s reasonable to argue that ‘active’ bar membership is the equivalent of ‘active practice at the bar of this state’ for purposes of the statute.

I disagree, however, with the candidate’s claim that as Sec’y of State she is practicing law. If that is true, then she would have very different obligations to the public than a non-lawyer Sec’y of State, and might be disabled from carrying out some of the duties of the office because of higher ethical obligations or attorney-client privilege.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:18:58 +0000

I have not yet received anything either via email or letter. Check out the front page of CT Newsjunkie.

By: AEM

AEM — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:12:30 +0000

Legislation is certainly an option to help clarify the statute in question, but as we’ve seen recently, there seems to be constitutional issues in-play. My prediction is that the legislature will actually stay far away from this issue (this year at least).

Have you received the letter yet? I find it hard to believe that a hard copy would not sent. Also, still curious if SB, SOTS sent the letter, or SB, AG candidate sent the letter?

By: DrHunterSThompson

DrHunterSThompson — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:57:38 +0000

“weak”

By: Anton

Anton — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:04:12 +0000

Yes, and an accurate synonym for “nuanced” in this context would be…?

By: EmGee

EmGee — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:18:54 +0000

There’s no definition of or description of the office of attorney general in our constitution because AG is not a common law office. It’s strictly a creature of statute and its powers are limited to those granted by statute. Much to Blumenthal’s chagrin, the CT Supreme Court ruled against his argument that his office had common law authority that extended beyond the authority specifically granted to it by the legislature. So the office of AG simply can’t be looked at in the same way as those offices that are specifically identified in our constitution.