I wouldn't be so sure David WOULDN'T come to an Abbott press conference, if invited and time permitting (David maintains his law practice while campaigning). I don't think he'd invite Abbott if he wasn't ready for a good, clean fight.

What the AG can do, and what is being done, are two different stories.

The AG DOES have the duty of legal adviser regarding legislation that affects the Constitution. That is sorely not being done at the moment.

The TTC is in volation of more than one section of the Constitution; but I'll leave that argument to the lawyer.

The AG IS supposed to be a Constitutional Advocate. Whether or not you want to call that "political advocacy", I guess is up to you.

And David DOES encourage people to attend public hearings, as well as attend as many as he can himself. He walks his talk. I'm sorry if you're not used to that from a "politician". But David puts the people before politics. It would be unethical to sit back and say nothing for the sake of "politics" while the people (and their homes) are being run over.

1:00 PM  

The Attorney General is supposed to perform the duties of office, pursuant to his oath of office.

To say an Attorney General is supposed to "simply enforce the laws on the books" reveals a lack of knowledge of the oath, and duty of the person taking the oath, to perform his duties pursuant to the Constitution. The AG is not duty bound to enforce unconstitutional law.

By way of evidence, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says as follows: This Constiuttion, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land: and the judeges, in every State, shall be bound therby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Trans Texas Corridor is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, but the main one being Articel I, Section X of the United States Constitution requiring a majority approval in the Senate, previous to a State negotiating with a foreign power. The further one looks into the TTC, and the "North American Partnership" agreement/treaty, the more one understands that a treaty has been "made" without any vote (much less a majority vote) in the Senate approving the negotiation of one.

The AG's oath only requires him to enforce what he honestly and intellectually knows to be, a Constitutional law. All action on the TTC should be halted by the current AG, because no vote whatsoever, was ever taken in the Senate allowing the State of Texas to negotiate a change to the method of entry into the United States of America. In other words, more people in the U.S. have a say so in National Border issues than just the Texas State representatives in the Perry Administration.

The AG who does not halt any and all State expenditures and plans for the TTC by any State employee, is violating his oath of office by not enforcing law pursuant to the Constitution.

IMHO

10:55 AM