Defending the constitution: the Attorney Generals duty “I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney general to the best of my ability.” That is the oath of office I took, the same oath taken by all of Michigan’s attorneys general. And that oath requires the Michigan attorney general to support the entire constitution — not bits and pieces, not just the odd-numbered pages, or only on sunny days. In addition, since the office of attorney general was founded — predating the entry of Michigan into the United States — this office has been the lawyer for the people. In 2004, more than 2.7 million Michigan voters, almost 60%, voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that stated, “The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” Now, the Detroit Free Press Editorial Board is urging the State of Michigan’s chief legal officer to violate his oath of office, ignore the constitution and negate the will of the people. To be clear: I will uphold my oath, I will support the constitution and I will defend the will of the people. When Michigan’s constitution was rewritten and approved by voters in 1963, it gave pre-eminent place to this phrase: “All political power is inherent in the people.” That is Article 1, Section 1, of our state’s fundamental governing document. In other words, in Michigan, the people rule. So, when 2.7 million Michigan voters support a constitutional amendment, that means something, and an attorney general is duty-bound to defend the wishes of the voters. To do anything less would be a dereliction of duty. Moreover, Michigan’s voters had a rational basis for their vote: Marriage has been understood to be between one man and one woman by virtually all civilizations throughout the centuries. The notion that marriage would be anything else has only emerged in the last few decades. It is not irrational for voters to support the belief that a mom and a dad are not interchangeable. This is a policy question, precisely the sort of decision that a democracy entrusts to the people. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states have the authority to regulate marriage. This is what Michigan voters have done. The Michigan Constitution tackles all manner of controversial issues: affirmative action, stem cell research, the death penalty, term limits, to name just a few. Does the Free Press really want one person — the attorney general — to decide which parts of the constitution to defend and which to ignore? My father died when I was 6 years old. My mother raised my two older sisters and me, so I have personal knowledge of the fact that families come in all colors, shapes and sizes. But I also know that there is a difference between a buffet and the state’s constitution. This fundamental document is not a cafeteria in which you can pick and choose which measures are enforced and defended. That is why I am defending Detroit’s cops’ and firefighters’ rights to their pensions, because the Michigan Constitution says pensions shall not be “diminished or impaired.” That is why I went to the United States Supreme Court to defend equal treatment in admissions to our state’s outstanding colleges and universities. Because it is fundamentally wrong to treat people differently based on the color of skin, gender, race or ethnicity. And that is why I will defend Article 1, Section 25 of Michigan’s Constitution — because I have a duty to defend. Bill Schuette Michigan Attorney General
Posted on: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:56:54 +0000