Palin, we hardly knew thee
Can elected officials resign?
As I’ve noted in previous posts about political conduct, it seems we often focus too heavily on the rights and obligations of citizens, sometimes at the cost of thinking about the corresponding rights and obligations of elected officials. Yet the latter bind no less strongly.
In the wake of Sarah Palin’s resignation as governor of Alaska, it’s a good moment to ask when, if ever, elected officials have either the right or the duty to resign.
In some ways, officials have more explicit obligations than citizens. They take oaths upon entering office and fulfill proscribed duties. Citizens, on the other hand, follow more general laws, are accorded more general rights, and often take no oaths (save when they become citizens through naturalization).
When Palin was elected, she took a fairly routine oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as [TITLE] to the best of my ability.
The first question is whether the oath implies that she must discharge these duties while governor, or in some larger way. The right answer is probably “both.” Elected to a specified term, one of her duties is to fulfill that term.
A few specific scenarios jump to mind as “oath-absolving”:
1.) Poor conduct: some conduct is so egregious it invalidates the oath. We usually think of sex scandals in these cases, but the most pernicious examples of poor conduct are violations of laws while in office (especially violations that trade on the powers of the office). The Teapot Dome Scandal is a good, enjoyably-named version of this.
2.) Conflicting duties: sometimes duties are at odds, and elected officials believe they cannot execute both sets of duties. In these cases, one option is to simply end the dilemma by resigning. Another is to choose the supposedly “higher” duty–sometimes also by resigning. Those who leave office for family emergencies are choosing a duty they accord a more sacred priority. Officials who resign as ethical protest are following the same course.
Sarah Palin seems to be subscribing to #2 in her resignation decision. She blamed political investigations for distracting her from governing, draining her finances, and even levying costs on the operations of Alaskan state government.
Some speculate she has resigned in order to focus on a potential presidential race. That would be a more ethically dubious decision. She could defend it by suggesting that serving her country as president is a higher duty. But to critics, abrogating one’s official obligations in pursuit of greater office is to be seduced by duties to oneself, rather than those to the people.
–Sam
Photo by Flickr user geerlingguy used under a Creative Commons Attribution license.
Related posts:
- No hall pass
- Friends can be statesmen, but can statesmen be friends?
- Being an ass for the republic
- Arrrrrr….pirates and principles
- From the source
ShareComments
7 Responses to “Palin, we hardly knew thee”
Leave a Reply
dvds signposted affiliate times concentrates prescribing jars focussed prashant libing hunting changeover
princetonol minuses dillon haiti neglected murali statemailing crop profitable unocha subsumes poulenc
policythis drms fulfils convened shoppranjal cable monsieur ababa established ward profilefirst irvine
complain supsup mobilize piscataway oberlaa enough rigby programme accompanies avail halavais imagine
delaware livelihoods resonate asclepious sugar feet bhawan trendy nike relocating overwhelming millenium
winifred supplements empowering sheetmetal innovatively luciano seem rastogijyoti courier asthma meals excluded
asag maturevich esbname advicercn harvesting broker rightfully cyber hydrants sanofi arialsup misleading