Lots of people seem to think that Attorney General Greg Abbott should avoid opining on the propriety of Speaker Craddick's refusal to recognize.
I'm not quite sure why. Hasn't Craddick asserted a constitutional defense? Doesn't the Attorney General issue advisory opinions about the Texas Constitution? My understanding is that the answer to both questions is yes, thus it seems quite proper that the Attorney General should address the constitutional question alone -- whether the Texas Constitution prohibits removal of the Speaker. It doesn't seem proper to address issues pertaining to House rules.
Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if Abbott decided to pass. Why insert himself into the matter? Let them re-write the House rules next session. Democracies are messy things after all, despite what newspaper editorial boards would have us believe.
Since an AG opinion is only advisory, what are the odds that Craddick would even acknowledge an adverse opinion?
Does Abbot really have any impact on the situation, other than for purposes of spin?
Posted by My name @ 08/09/07 02:00 PM
No flames or impolite behavior. HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
Comments must be approved before being published.