10:28 GMT +323 October 2019
Listen Live
    PL-14 Pistol

    Take it Outside: US State May Bring Back Duels for Feuding Politicians

    © Sputnik / Alexander Vilf
    Get short URL

    Oregon lawmakers seek to remove the state’s constitutional ban on duels between people holding public office.

    US law is a priceless source for all kinds of arcane rules and regulations, some of which sounds downright ridiculous today. The state of Oregon, for instance, officially banned duels between people in any form of official position, in 1845. Today, the state's lawmakers are looking to have that ban removed, according to US media reports.

    That's right: in the nineteenth century, politicians — the very people who are meant to settle pressing problems calmly and logically, with persuasion and rhetoric — often opted to shoot one another instead. The practice was widespread, though the most well-known case happened in 1804, when US Vice President Aaron Burr shot the nation's first treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton. Forty years later,  Oregon state authorities were so fed up with the issue that then-Governor Jesse Applegate signed the ban on dueling within half an hour after it was introduced in the legislature.

    "They decided that it would not be very civil if two members of the Legislature disagreed and then shot each other on the front steps of the provisional capitol," Republican Sen. Brian Boquist, the main sponsor of the ban removal, said Wednesday during the proposal's first committee hearing.

    According to Boquist, the duel ban is only one of many obsolete rules in the state constitution, some of which might be a basis for serious legal problems, should anyone decided to raise them in court.

    "I want you to know that most of your stationery is probably in violation of the law because we have a constitutional clause as to how we can use our stationery," Boquist informed the committee.

    He also pointed out that, in several paragraphs, the constitution contradicts later amendments.

    Boquist is one of a group of lawmakers who seek to sanitize the state constitution by removing obsolete and arcane rules and bans. While the incentive is easy to relate to, in a human sense, it's a bit more complicated when it comes to laws.

    According to Dan Meek, a Portland attorney and Oregon Progressive Party spokesman, and the only person to speak out against Boquist's initiative, removal of seemingly obsolete law will nevertheless have a direct and not entirely obsolete legal effect.

    "This resolution would allow the candidacies of persons who give or accept challenges to fight duels," Meek wrote to the committee.

    There is a more obvious reason against changing state law, Meek noted.

    "There is a cost to removing obviously unenforced and unenforceable provisions in the Oregon Constitution, including the cost of processing and printing this resolution on millions of ballots and processing the results."

    While Boquist agrees that removal of all arcane paragraphs would be better, the group had to opt for a one-step-at-time approach, considering the fact that a similar proposal failed back in 1970, when a group of lawmakers also tried to update the whole constitution in one go, including the politicians' duels part.

    Should the proposal pass both chambers, it will appear on voter ballots as Senate Joint Resolution 44, or SJR 44, later in April.


    Gorsuch to Defend US Constitution 'Faithfully' - Trump
    Trump Violates Constitution by Ordering Syria Strike Without Asking Congress
    Syrian Kurds Discuss Constitution in Geneva, Want Independence or Confederation
    Ukrainian Bill on Language Quotas Violates Constitution – Russian Envoy to OSCE
    Poland Threatens to Snub Rome Declaration Over Sovereignty, Constitution Row
    obsolete, Legislation, duel, amendments, constitution, Oregon, United States
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik