|
Confirmation testimony we'd like to
see
by Jon Roland
Q: Sir, you have been nominated to an important position of trust
in the government of the United States. Your experience and
accomplishments are impressive, but we need to ask you, have you
violated any laws that you haven't told us about?
A: Probably.
Q: Probably? You aren't sure?
A: No, I'm not.
Q: What laws do you think you might have violated?
A: None that immediately come to mind. If I think of any that might
affect my ability to do the job for which I've been nominated, I'll get
back to you.
Q: How can you say you have probably violated some laws but none
come to mind? Don't you know what the laws are that you might have
violated?
A: No, I don't. I am familiar with many laws that might apply to me,
but not all of them.
Q: Sir, haven't you heard the maxim that "Ignorance of the
law is no excuse."?
A: I know that is a misquote. The original maxim, from the Latin, is
"Ignorance of the law that everyone can be expected to know is no
excuse." When the maxim was first put forth, it was possible to put
all the laws into a few volumes, and everyone could be expected to know
them. Today, it is impossible for anyone to know what all the laws are
that might apply to one, and for most people, it is not feasible to hire
a team of lawyers to follow one around to warn him of possible
violations. And that's just laws. It doesn't begin to cover all the
statutes and regulations that one might violate.
Q: Sir, it has been reported that you may have employed a domestic
worker without withholding and paying taxes on her. Is that true?
A: That's a matter of opinion. My position is that I did not.
Q: Did you employ a domestic worker or didn't you?
A: I once engaged someone to work in my house, but I considered her
an independent contractor.
Q: Don't you know the difference between an employee and an
independent contractor?
A: Frankly, no, and I don't think anyone else does, either. As far as
I was concerned, and as far as she was concerned, she was an independent
contractor. I engaged her on that basis.
Q: So you didn't withhold or pay taxes on her?
A: No, there is no rule that says I have to withhold or pay taxes on
independent contractors, and I didn't.
Q: If the IRS determined that she was an employee, would you pay
the taxes you were supposed to have withheld?
A: The IRS has no authority to make such a determination. That would
be up to a court to decide, and no court has decided that.
Q: Let's move on to another allegation. It has been reported that
you once harbored an illegal alien. Did you do that?
A: Not to the best of my knowledge.
Q: Didn't you know she was an illegal alien?
A: No.
Q: Didn't you suspect she was an illegal alien?
A: The thought crossed my mind, but I didn't ask, and she didn't tell
me.
Q: If the thought crossed your mind, don't you think you should
have investigated whether she was an illegal alien?
A: The thought has crossed my mind that you are an illegal alien,
Senator, but I'm not going to ask you whether you are. How would you
answer that question, and how could I determine whether you were or not?
I'm not qualified to decide whether any evidence you might have of legal
status is valid. And if you say you had ID but lost it, how am I
supposed to prove you're lying? I can't, and neither can most people,
unless they have the resources of the INS. There's just no point in even
asking.
Q: Sir, if we confirm you to this office, we will expect you to
enforce all the laws on the books, even if you disagree with them. Do
you commit yourself to do that?
A: I will direct the enforcement of the most important laws in the
most important cases, within the limits of the resources available and
the adequacy of the evidence that can be found. Beyond that, no one can
go. It is impossible to enforce all the laws in all the cases. There are
too many laws and too many cases. However, that doesn't include
unconstitutional statutes or unauthorized regulations. Those aren't
laws.
Q: Don't you think it is up to the federal courts to decide
whether a statute is constitutional? Aren't you obliged by your oath of
office to enforce the statutes on the books until a court decides they
are unconstitutional?
A: No. It is the duty of all persons living in this country to
enforce the law, but that means knowing what the law is, and what it is
not, and that means resolving conflicts in the law. If a statute is in
conflict with the Constitution, it is not the law, and never was the
law, and whether a court decides that it is the law or is not doesn't
change whether it is the law. The court may get it right, or it may not,
but what it is doesn't get changed by how they decide. That is a
decision that everyone has the duty to make, not just judges. My oath to
defend the Constitution implies the duty to make that decision for
myself. I can't delegate it to judges, supervisors, or legal advisors,
and I won't. I will make those decisions myself.
Q: Suppose a court orders you to enforce a statute you decide is
unconstitutional. Will you obey the court, or defy it?
A: It depends on whether the court's position falls within the bounds
of reasonable disagreement. It's like the call of an umpire in a
sporting event. If he calls the ball out of bounds, and it is within the
margin of error of human perception, then I'll accept the call, and
comply with it. If he calls it in and it's out by ten feet, then no.
That is not reasonable, and I would not go along with it. The same
applies to court decisions. If the court's call is close to the line,
I'll comply with it.
Q: Sir, do you have any requests of us in the Senate?
A: Yes. Stop passing unconstitutional statutes, and start repealing
the ones on the books. That will solve the problem we have been
discussing here today.
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av
#370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916-568-1022, 916-450-7941Voice Mail
Date: 01/12/01 Time: 01:00:38
http://www.constitution.org/
mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org
|
