Rerun Law Enforcement

Posted Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 10:43 AM

This is the first blog I wrote when the TG first started the blogging feature. See Addendum at end of piece.

Who is the highest ranking law enforcement official in a given County in Tennessee? If several people were polled on this question, most would probably say the Sheriff. Maybe a few would say the Police Chief. They both would be wrong. The answer is the District Attorney General.

The District Attorney General in Tennessee is extremely powerful and answers to no one except the voters, then only every 8 years. Tennessee is the only State in the Country whereby the State Attorney General is in the Judicial Branch instead of the Executive Branch where he should be. The Attorney General of Tennessee is appointed by the State Supreme Court and as such he has no power over the State's elected District Attorneys General.

The practical application of this situation is the Attorney General's opinions are not binding on anyone and are advisory only. The Attorney General of Tennessee therefore has no control, nor much influence really, on the District Attorneys General of Tennessee. The District Attorneys General are also in the Judicial Branch, which is the wrong Branch and violates the US Constitution's Separation of Powers Doctrine outlined in Art. I, II and III.

Since the DAG decides who is charged with a crime and prosecutes those charged, he is in an extremely powerful position and cannot be voted out for eight years. Only DAGs and Judges have the luxury of such long terms.

In Tennessee all criminal appeals at the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court are handled by the Attorney General of Tennessee. So if a case is on appeal and one is seeking to unjustly stay out of a cage for years or maybe even death, the other side has the full weight, financially and otherwise of the State of Tennessee arguing against them before the very body that appointed them in the first place!!!!

This is so fundamentally unfair it stretches reason, yet it is true. The remedy lies in electing the Attorney General of Tennessee and shortening their term, and the DAGs as well to 4 years so as to be more accountable to the citizenry. The arguments against such is usually we need to keep politics out of the Attorney General's office, as if lobbying the Supreme Court is somehow superior to "lobbying" the people in an election.

Perhaps the DAG's greatest power arises from his power to influence the Grand Jury, but that is another subject for another day.

Addendum: After publishing this piece I researched the TCA to determine the qualifications for running and serving as a District Attorney General. Turns out, being an attorney is not among the qualifications. Interesting.

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Interesting. I have no knowledge about the judicial system, except that I would like to avoid it.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Tue, Jul 8, 2008, at 3:53 PM

I am a little amazed that more people don't seem to be concerned about the matters outlined here. The founders greatest fears were of a strong law enforcement operation that didn't answer to the people. That's why they stress the rights of the individual in the Bill of Rights. While most of us never personally have a serious "run-in" with any law enforcement authorities, should not we be concerned for our brethern that do?

-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Fri, Jul 11, 2008, at 2:59 PM

Are you trying to get me started with my pessimistic thinking tonight? I do not have much time this weekend I am going out of town, but want to quickly say that whether or not we should be concerned depends on if we are hoping for justice or oppression.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Sat, Jul 12, 2008, at 12:33 AM

memyself.......I take your question to be rhetorical and hope we will always wish for justice. Thanks for the comment.

-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Sat, Jul 12, 2008, at 11:41 AM

Yes it was, and it depends on who the "we" is. If by we you are referring to the judges lawyers and administrators, I would guess you are mistaken. They know better than to wish for something so ridiculous. I hope you do not personally look for justice in the courts. The closest you will come to justice in most cases, either civil or criminal, is negotiated settlement with the overarching beneficiary being the system itself. Not to mention the injustice involved in who goes to court and how to begin with. I do not think it is an accident that the laity is excluded by the complex inner workings and jargon of our legal system. Most would be outraged and many would demand change.

I do not have any better ideas personally, but deferring to the polis as completely as Socrates envisioned has for centuries been in need of a good overhaul or at least some re-thinking. I do fully understand that we are only people and are not actually even in the position to accurately dispense justice, however I think we could easily dispense a little less injustice and be on the right track.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Jul 18, 2008, at 12:24 AM

Also, I disagree that the majority of our founders really cared about the Bill of Rights. They were for the most part, more interested in the oppression and control of the masses. You are however correct that they did not want any strong law enforcement that didnt answer to the people. My definition of people and theirs was somewhat different though. Their idea of people was of course, themselves and others like them. The Bill of Rights was not even an original part of the completed constitution. It was added afterward to appease the lesser classes. The whole incident was a legalistic framing groundwork to maintain and gain control. I am somewhat surprised you do not see it that way with your excellent history of the religions of the same rich white men and their representatives. Sorry, I had to get this negative comment in, just for fun. On a more positive note, I will also give you the fact that some of them had honorable intentions, and 1 or 2 even admitted that the experiment had failed by the end of the century.

-- Posted by memyselfi on Fri, Jul 18, 2008, at 12:46 AM

Politically Incorrect

Carl McClanahan

- Recent posts
- Archives
- Blog RSS feed

- Comments RSS feed

- Login

Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.

Hot topics

Narcissism
(5 ~ 11:43 PM, Feb 3)

Sentencing
(42 ~ 8:56 PM, Dec 23)

Election 2010
(3 ~ 8:24 PM, Nov 27)

Gambling Update
(16 ~ 10:52 PM, Nov 25)

Gambling Sentence
(7 ~ 10:45 PM, Nov 25)

Home