AG has trust issues

May 28, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Our attorney general isn’t very trusting of the federal government. He said so in a statement released this week.

“The people of Indiana did not elect me to trust the federal government, so I will stand vigilant with our lawyers at the ready – just in case.”

Attorney General Greg Zoeller was responding to a White House memorandum released May 20 stating the Obama administration’s general policy is that preemption of state law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken “only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with sufficient legal basis for preemption.”

Zoeller’s statement reiterated the dual sovereignty of state and federal laws. “As the Attorney General for the sovereign state of Indiana, I applaud the President’s strong statement. But having served nearly 10 years in the federal government, I will continue to be very distrustful of words of support,” he said.

Zoeller worked as an executive assistant to Dan Quayle from 1982 to 1991 in Washington, D.C. while Quayle was a U.S. senator and later vice president, according to the statement.

It’s good to know our attorney general has our best interests in mind and is ready to take on the federal government if necessary. The frankness of the statement is surprising and refreshing. No sugar coating or dancing around the subject – if the federal government starts encroaching on our state’s rights, we’ll be fighting back.

I often forget the role of the AG goes beyond protecting Indiana residents from shady businesses and people calling us even though we are on the “Do Not Call” list.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT