Posted by 
Governor Bob Riley and his Attorney General Troy King are taking their differences to the state’s highest court.
King wants to convince the Supreme Court that the governor has no authority to make the head of his [gambling] task force, David Barber, an assistant attorney general. King says only he has the power to do that.
Governor Riley’s office responded saying, “If the attorney general doesn’t enforce the law, then who will if not the governor?”
Two constitutional officers butting heads against each other in the state Supreme Court? Now there’s a spectacle.
Would King’s 2010 re-election effort feel the aftershock if he ends up on the losing side here? Or is it simply fodder for the campaign? “Fighting to the highest courts for his beliefs…”
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
Woe . . .Troy sure is smart . . .pick a fight with your party’s leader while a very strong opponent (Luther Strange) awaits you in the GOP primary.
Troy is toast either way.
What is interesting is that this is probably the most wide open Governor’s race in Alabama history.
Both parties are wide open especially the Republican side where its still unclear who the candidates will and will not be.
And its even unclear who the BCA/Riley favorite candidate will be or its even possible there will not be one as more than one candidate that both the BCA and Riley like will run.
But its a fight that’s been brewing since at least Pryor and Siegelman’s disagreements over who had the authority to hire law firms and the tobacco law suit.
Either way, there’s going to be a folks wearing new donkey or elephant ties.
From a legal standpoint it really is Pryor and Siegelman fight all over again.
It over the authority of the Governor vs. the AG.
The reality is that under the Alabama Constitution the Governor is the ultimate chief law enforcement officer of the state.
I expect Riley to win this fight.
Prince – Someone must have told you that, because you sure didn’t read it in the Code of Alabama. The governor is the chief EXECUTIVE officer of the state, and the attorney general is the chief LAW officer of the state. Don’t feel bad though. Riley doesn’t understand it either.
#5, since you seem to be an expert on the Code and Constitution, could you please provide a cite for your commment?
Prince – What makes you say “that this is probably the most wide open Governor’s race in Alabama history”?
I don’t think at this point in the process you could honestly believe in that grand sweeping statement you made, especially because, as you said, the “Republican side where its still unclear who the candidates will and will not be”.
The governor is the chief executive and chief magistrate of the state by section 113 of the Constituion.
There is no section similarly granting power to the AG.
The AG basicly gets what authority he or she has been given the legislative branch and the governor.
There no real inherent authority in the Constitution.
So the basic inferior status of the office to the Governor is plain from the text of Constitution.
Edward, look at the race no Governor, no ex Governor, no LT Gov, no AG or US Senator in the race.
When you seen that before?
I don’t expect Riley to win because I think the Supreme Court is looking for an excuse to avoid the slot machine/bingo question altogether. King may have given them just that.
As for who wears the pants for law enforcement, wear exactly does the code say the AG is the “chief law enforcement officer,” Anonymous?
I know the gov is the “chief magistrate” in the constitution, and that sounds an awful lot like law enforcement officer.
*where, exactly. sorry.
I agree the Governor’s race is wide open. WEAK candidates abound. Artur’s main selling point is that his skin color is a trump card in the primary. Only problem is that it is a trump card against him in the general.
Republicans have a hoity-toity nerd who looks down on everybody, a crazy ex-governor’s son who is trying to buy the election, and some old lady that is, by turns, either stupid, drunk, a lesbian and a pilferer of the public’s money – or all 4, depending on who you believe.
So no matter who wins that fight, Alabama ultimately loses.
“So no matter who wins that fight, Alabama ultimately loses.”
Sounds like a fair assessment of most of the political controversies since state hood.
Well, abolition of slavery including prison labor and debt peonage, the eradication of hookworm and pellagra were wins for the state.
In fairness, Pee Party, Artur is as “hoity toity” as anyone I know. Plus, Roger Bedford is corruption personified and Sparks is, as the Cracker Barrel golf tee game would say, just plain dumb.
So if it’s Davis vs Byrne, I think we could do a lot worse than a couple of smart guys competing for the state’s top job.
Pee Party – Who’s hoity-toity and who is a “pilferer of the public’s money”?
Whoops, I see who is a “pilferer of the public’s money”.
I wouldn’t so quick about making Byrne the fortrunner.
He has really ID and how good a candidate he will be remains to be seen. I have serious doubts about how well he connect with Bubba.
And the religious right crowd will want somebody else.
As for Davis – he is trying to become the most liberal governor ever.
And since November 2008 he moved — to the LEFT!!!
He’s giving 100% support to his personal buddy Obama that will play very poorly in November 2010.
Prince and Jinks – Perhaps your hero Bob Riley should check out the following: Alabama Code 36-15-21 (“All litigation concerning the interest of the state, or any department of the state, shall be under the direction and control of the Attorney General.”
Further,the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that “the attorney general is … the chief law
officer of the state, and on him are conferred
various authorities and duties in connection with
instituting and prosecuting, in the name of the
state, suits and other proceedings … for the
preservation and protection of the rights and interests of the state.”
anon 18 hit the nail on the head
Looks like Troy King’s about to try his first case!
Bet Troy can’t wait to check the Governor’s briefs!
Bob Riley isn’t my hero by any means, but compared to troy king, riley is superman, batman and st francis of assisi all wrapped into one. Seriously, King is the public official I respect the least, even worse than langford. I was suspect of Riley on the task force all along, but if troy king says it’s wrong, it must be right. Doubt I’m the only one.
troy king is a boy trying to do a man’s job. we all know it. he needs to go and i feel like he will – regardless of the outcome of this case. its pathetic having him as AG – not to mention ronnie gilley’s lap dog on this issue. GO LUTHER!
I don’t care for Riley at all. Compare King to Riley.
Its Riley’s fault that we have such unqualified AG who combines this with a total lack of characters.
Riley picked a guy who not only not done any litigation but have never appeared in a courtroom of any kind as an attorney representing any party in any matter!
King was a joke from day one.
You King-basher boys have just given me a big laugh, for which I thank you. You argue your incorrect facts and when your ignorance – or lies – are exposed, all you can do is start whining and throwing your little personal attack darts. You clearly can’t run with the big dogs, so you should stay under the poarch.
Anonymous, shouldn’t you be going to get the General a coffee right now, or give him another teabag?
Troy King – Pee Wee Herman without all the machismo.
No. 18, while the legislative authority to control litigation that interest the State falls with the AG, previous posters are right that the Governor is the “chief magistrate.” Siegelman also slipped some language in a tobacco statute that gives the Gov. authority to control state litigation. That will be the issue for the Court to decide — which provision governs here.
Another problem for King is that he cannot argue that he has the authority in intervene, and yet fail to assert that authority. If he does not intervene in this case, which he refuses to do for PR purposes, that argument is moot, and the governor has the authority to control the litigation.
“You clearly can’t run with the big dogs, so you should stay under the poarch. ” I think I had this on a t-shirt when I was in third grade…
Baudrillard – The tobacco litigation statute giving the governor the authority to sue on behalf of the state without the attorney general’s approval is exclusive to the tobacco legislation. The Supremes cannot rule that the tobacco statute grants that authority in a broader sense…it would be unconstitutional and the entire statute would necessarily be overturned as a result. Trust me – they don’t want to do that. King has out-lawyered the governor, his legal staff, and his high priced hired legal guns in Birmingham. The Supremes will have no choice but to reject the governor’s argument and dismiss his appeal.
Nope, the legislature delegated general authority over litigation to the AG.
However, if he fails to carry out his duties the chief magistrate – the Governor has both the authority and actually the duty to act.
And you said false attacks were made. Name someone false about King that has been said.
Do you claim he handled some cases before becoming AG?
How to argue its ok to have AG picked who knows nothing about the courtrooom?
the AG is not wanting to do his duty in this case and represent the state……. thus, the governor has the right to step in.
Prince is so right about the King appointment being the worst appointment in history. Riley blew it and now he is reaping what he sowed.
Bau has an interesting point about the decision to intervene. If King has chosen to not control the litigation, what does it matter that he CAN control it? Anonymous, you obviously work under the guy. Would you care to enlighten us?
I’m not defending the governor on this, I just think King is trying to find a clever way to protect his friends, Milton and Gilley. He may be right on the technicalities of the law, but his intentions are clear. Protect M&G at all costs. It’s sick.
i think maybe you “just think” wrong jinks…the former AG gave basically the same opinion as king did when asked…you think he was out to protect mcgregor and gilley also?? its laughable, at best…
http://www.nbc13.com/vtm/news/local/article/alabama_governor_praises_supreme_court_ruling/68801/
Pryor does it and it’s wonderful, but when King does the exact same thing it’s terrible. What’s up with that? I believe you boys may be Seigleman fan club members, or perhaps you’re still smarting over Tyson’s loss.
Anon, when Pryor stepped in, he actually asserted his authority under 36-15-21. King refuses to assert any authority, but hides behind Bobby Segall’s briefs. Until King steps out on that limb, the Governor can, as the “Chief Magisdtrate,” fill the void.
Also, when Pryor stepped in, it was litigation directed by a Department of the State, namely the Insurance Board. This litigation was brought by the Governor, an Executive Officer of the State, not a Department or instrumentality of the State. King has no jurisdiction or authority over an Executive Officer of the State of Alabama. King has no authority, statutory or otherwise, to commandeer the appeal of an Executive Officer of this State.
Point, match, game.
Baudrillard – You are confident that you are right, just as I am that I am right. I sense that you are a lawyer and well versed. I am not a lawyer, but someone who still believes in reading and the thought process. Point, match, game, might be a tad premature on your part – another reason I think you may be a lawyer. The Supremes have yet to sing on King’s filing. When they do, then it will be point-match-game. Thanks for the back and forth. I have enjoyed it.
Isn’t the proper phrase game set match?
Any way, if Baurillard is a lawyer he is a transactional lawyer who never reads the law outside of his small field. The AG’s authority is rooted in common law, statutory law, and supreme court precedent. The AG is the chief law officer of the state according to the Supreme Court and he can take away/direct state litigation. Further, the Supreme Court has held that only the AG can represent the State before the appeallate courts.
If the Gov is correct, then not only the Gov, but all the justices of the courts of appeall could each create their very on AG just like the Gov to investigate and bring charges against political enemies. This case is now more important than gambling, it is about the proper balance of power in the State. I just hope our Supreme Court will do what’s right, and not what is politically expedient.
nooneknows – Thanks for converting my thoughts into words. You articulated my opinion nicely. About the tennis talk – I have never played the game. I have always been too busy working so that I could keep my lawyer employed.
NOK and Anon, I am neither a tennis player, nor a transactional lawyer, but apparently, NOK is both. I will give you credit, NOK, you have me on the tennis phraseology. However, I beg to differ on your analysis of the AG’s expansive authority on controlling litigation brought by state officers.
The law, statutory and otherwise, is clear that the AG can control litigation that pertains to a “State interest” or that was brought by a “department of the State.” The AG can also bring his own litigation, over which he has exclusive control. King did not bring this litigation, and as discussed before, this case is not one brought by any department of the State. It is one brought by a fellow Executive Officer of the State.
If King can dismiss litigation brought by other Constitutional Officers, then he can control the litigation of his “political enemies,” as he is trying to do here. The only problem with King’s tactics here is that he is not taking control, but simply arguing that he COULD take control.
That argument uses the same rationale as the Alabama Legislature arguing that the Supreme Court cannot decide the bingo issue because the Legislature COULD passs a bill that legalizes gambling. The Legislature HASN’T passed such a bill, WON’T pass such a bill, and is not even TRYING to pass such a bill. Similarly, King HASN’T intervened in this case, WON’T interevene in this case, and is not even TRYING to intervene, because the political cost is too great.
Anyone for tennis?