Not exactly.
I’m still waiting to get an .mp3 file of the audio in question – I made the call to request it after hours, and was told my source would try to get it for me tomorrow if at all possible – but here’s basically what happened:
Around 2:45pm this afternoon, Jenny Hodges put the following status on her Facebook page:
The DIRT BAGS ARE HERE, not in Washington. John Wiles needs to be immediately recalled for perjuring himself regarding his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. He’s in my district. Maybe I should unseat him.
I inquired about what was going on, and was told that apparently Senator Wiles had said that the Constitution wasn’t law, as Jenny stated in another update where she said “Georgia Republican Senator John Wiles said moments ago in committee hearing: “The Constitution is not the law.”"
So I after work I made some calls and talked to some people. Obviously, tracking the General Assembly is something I genuinely enjoy doing, and I wanted to get to the bottom of this.
Apparently, the Senate Judiciary Committee – currently chaired by Preston Smith (R-Rome) – was discussing SB 292, the comprehensive revision of the Juvenile code, today. One section of the bill apparently has something to do with lawyers representing clients, which is alluded to in the Constitution. (Note here I am unsure if the US or GA Constitution is being referenced at this point.)
Senator Wiles was saying that lawyers are not governed by law, but by the code of ethics put forth by the GA Supreme Court. This is actually very similar to the teacher code of ethics, which I am personally very familiar with as a former teacher. Ethical behavior for both lawyers and teachers is not defined by the Official Code of Georgia, but by codes of ethics put forth by the GA Supreme Court and GA Department of Education, respectively. Senator Wiles’ opponents were trying to claim that these ethical guidelines were in the GA Constitution, while he was claiming that the guidelines were not in GA Code. This is constitutional law vs statutory law. You need to understand that to see the distinction in the question.
So he was asked point blank “Is the Constitution law?” or something very similar to that. His answer was “No”, because he was arguing statutory law, not constitutional law, as his opponents were arguing. Pretty much everyone in the room apparently knew he had misspoken there, and he tried to correct but to apparently little avail. Again, I’m still waiting on the audio so I’ll know more precisely what happened there. A better answer would have been to say something along the lines of “The Constitution is one form of law, but I am arguing statutory law, which the Constitution is not.”
But now he has several activists after him over what was truly a minor goof on a technicality – not some earth shattering philosophical difference that these activists would have you think it was.
I’ve been told Senator Wiles is really one of the good guys by several people that I personally consider among the good guys, and I really see no reason to be attacking him here. Make no mistake, I will have no problems attacking him if his actions warrant it, but from what I know of this issue at this time, public attacks are truly not warranted – nor really is even harsh private conversation.
I was personally there. It was not a question between the two distincions of law. It was a question about the ultimate governing law. The Senator stated that the Constitution was not law.
I was also there, and feeding Jenny the info. I had just testified maybe 10 minutes previous to this comment for the people and the constitution, therefore, against the federal position.
Another board member raised a similar argument to mine on the point at hand, actually referencing my position.
He called it a contract between the federal government and the state- not the people.
He actually wanted to linger on his question, but, over many boo’s from the gallery, other members of the board “reeled him back in” by at least getting him to finally see the wisdom in agreeing that the constitution does trump “the law”.
The excuse given in the article is just as poor as the Senators statement given the context. Lawyers are not governed by the law? They are most certainly governed by the law just as we all are.
The “activists” are trying to force our elected servants to obey the law and their oath of office. They often seem to lose sight of the stated purpose of our Government. That purpose can be found in our Decleration Of Independence. To secure the blessings of liberty.
Most of what has been passed as law does the opposite of that stated intent.
Ron,
The man that told me about where the lawyers’ code of ethics comes from is himself a lawyer. I think he would know. As I stated, there were two different thoughts on where lawyers’ ethics are derived. Wiles, a lawyer, correctly stated that the official code of ethics that governs lawyers’ ethical behavior is NOT part of the Official Code of Georgia, but comes from the State Supreme Court. His opponents were arguing that there is also a clause in the Constitution that also mandates lawyers’ ethics. Thus, the argument was a technical one, not one of both parties arguing based on the same stream of thought.
Also note that the Declaration of Independence, while a founding document, does NOT carry the weight of Law.
while the Declaration of Independence does not carry the weight of the law, I would assert that it DOES speak directly to the issue at hand. Almost all the grievances listed against the King could just as easily be applied to our current “public servants” from the “top- down.”
This system causes men like Wiles to act instead like feudal lords, paying tribute to and seeking the approval of Washington- as if it has DC right to assert such authority.
R Miller:
What, then? Should we have a new “Declaration of Independence” from the American Government?
Jeff you fail to grasp the point. I am fully aware that Lawyers are bound or governed by the rules of the Court and a code of ethics. That fact does not however excuse them from obeying the law as well.
The one is a code of conduct regarding occupation, the other is the rule of law and applies to all equally.
A correct statement would be that while lawyers are subject to the law, they are also governed by a set of rules or ethics which is not law. You see what I was saying?
In regards to our Declaration. Are you suggesting that the reason for creating our Government is of no consequence? It is not law, however it is the foundation that our law rests upon. If it is of no importance what does that say about the law?
The same purpose is repeated in the preamble of our Constitution. Should we disregard that as well?
I will not claim to answer for Rob, however in my humble opinion. We must take an active role in forcing our legislators to uphold their oath of office.That must include respecting the stated purpose of our form of Government.If you believe that amassing a 12 trillion dollar national debt and allowing the Federal Government to extort the State into doing what the Federal Government cannot do itself is promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty then you and I will never agree.