SC Governor reappears...after going to Argentina?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

My theory about her being content with her money, power, and prestige was in reference to whether she might sue the mistress.

Ohhhhh--due to the rarity of mistress lawsuits, that makes your theory automatically right and any woman who wouldn't sue the mistress wouldn't be doing so because of money, power, and prestige. Even poor women.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by FSUZeta

YES!! i noticed that too. Mentioning the wife and boys seemed almost an afterthought. What a bizarre press conference.

when i first heard that noone had seen hide nor hair of the governor for 7 days, i said to my husband,"mistress"!

I actually cringed and said "are you going to mention your wife and kids?"

Yes, that's the ideal mistress (or young lovers running away from a judgmental world ) getaway.

[sdeason1]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

The law is the law.

in which country or both? his political career would seem shot. is he human of course he is. he did not think he would get caught? what a dummy!
does anyone know what evil lurks in the hearts on the male species. say goodby gov and your life as an important person.

[DaemonSeid]

I think one of my questions is getting answered....whose money he spent to go and this looks like this was for last year's trip:


COLUMBIA, S.C. — One day after admitting an affair, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford reunited with his wife and sons and announced he will reimburse the state for a trip he took last year in which he met his Argentinean mistress.

Sanford said he "made a mistake" in seeing the woman last June during a trade mission to Brazil and Argentina. State records indicate he spent more than $8,000 in airfare, lodging and meals. The governor's spokesman, Joel Sawyer, said Thursday that Sanford will pay back the money spent in Argentina. Sawyer had said earlier that no state resources were used.

Republican state Sen. Jake Knotts called for an investigation. "That's like a bank robber getting caught and wanting to return the money," Knotts said. "He should strongly consider resigning."

Sanford resigned Wednesday as chairman of the Republican Governors Association but said he'd "let the chips fall where they may" otherwise. He spent Thursday at his family's beach house near Charleston after spending Father's Day weekend in Buenos Aires.

Knotts said the use of taxpayer money was too much to accept from a onetime presidential contender who made his name as a staunch fiscal conservative.

link

[UGAalum94]

It's hard for me to see why he shouldn't resign.

It's pretty clear he self-destructed; if members of your own party want you out and you've clearly screwed up. . . .

I understand self-interested behavior, but he's not just undermining his own success at this point.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It's hard for me to see why he shouldn't resign.

It's pretty clear he self-destructed; if members of your own party want you out and you've clearly screwed up. . . .

I understand self-interested behavior, but he's not just undermining his own success at this point.

The state funding the boom-boom-room trip was the turning point for me. It's just so weird.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

The state funding the boom-boom-room trip was the turning point for me. It's just so weird.

Me too - at that point, it goes from "embarrasing personal story" to a major issue with his governmental responsibilities.

[sdeason1]

whether legal in either country or not, he is in a long line of political figures who have strayed and I am sure will not be the last. He should do the manly thing and step down as his political star has dimmed greatly. who can trust him now? should he pay the money back he use, dar, that is a given! it was not for the people of his state but for his lustful ways. just say good by and fade into the sunset. wonder if there could be a club started where he could join or at least a program he could enroll in?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

The state funding the boom-boom-room trip was the turning point for me. It's just so weird.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Me too - at that point, it goes from "embarrasing personal story" to a major issue with his governmental responsibilities.

Weirdly, despite not completely considering his going missing for a few days OR his having an affair as necessarily being resignation worthy on their own, the combo of those two alone, even without the previous state funded trip, are enough to make me say that he should be done. The flakiness reflects on his competence.

(A guy under work related stress can completely detach himself from work for a few days, in my opinion. If your extra-martial affair hits the public, you could try to serve out your term if your ability to govern wasn't otherwise affected. But you can't just flake out, leave town, and go see your mistress for a few days to break up. Nope.)

The other trip on the taxpayers' dime just formalizes it.

And, it just seems really selfish to try to hold on. Who benefits from his not resigning? Only he does, as near as I can tell.

[sdeason1]

a gentleman on gma this morning explained it pretty well. they, the poiticians are held in such high esteem, they feel that they can do so many things because of the male ego. just look at all who in the recent past have done the same thing. he should resign for the betterment of his family ands citizens of the state.
get them out of office and be done with them.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And the Constitution is the superior law. As KSigKid says, there is a very good chance that any state statute making adultery unconstitutional would not pass federal constitutional muster.

Besides, if I've got it all straight, the actual acts of adultery occured in Argentina, not in South Carolina, so any SC law would be irrelevant.

It was in NC, but it was for alienation of affection, not adultery.

Thank you, MC! I knew that the legal eagles of GC would know the answer.

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And the Constitution is the superior law. As KSigKid says, there is a very good chance that any state statute making adultery unconstitutional would not pass federal constitutional muster.

Besides, if I've got it all straight, the actual acts of adultery occured in Argentina, not in South Carolina, so any SC law would be irrelevant.

This sums up the points I was concerned about quite well, although I think MysticCat meant to say, "making adultery illegal would not pass federal constitutional muster." Maybe it would; maybe it wouldn't. I still don't understand how the prospect that a law might be unconstitutional can be a reason for non-enforcement. In other words, it's still the law until stricken from the books. Right? A constitutional challenge would come later.

On the other point, why would it matter where the adultery took place? Sanford and his wife are residents of South Carolina and fall under SC law. If he married his mistress, would he not be guilty of bigamy? Would it be perfectly fine for him to have wives in Argentina, Georgia, North Carolina, etc., just as long as he doesn't have two wives in SC? I think not. By the same token, it shouldn't matter where the adultery took place.

In fact, it seems to me that bigamy is just as questionable constitutionally as adultery, and yet the government goes after bigamy with a vengeance while waving off adultery as not even worthy of consideration. I'm just wondering why.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

In fact, it seems to me that bigamy is just as questionable constitutionally as adultery, and yet the government goes after bigamy with a vengeance while waving off adultery as not even worthy of consideration. I'm just wondering why.

My guess would be because spouses are granted rights that non-spouses aren't. Similar rights don't apply to adulterers and adulteresses.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

This sums up the points I was concerned about quite well, although I think MysticCat meant to say, "making adultery illegal would not pass federal constitutional muster."

I did indeed. Thanks for catching that.

Maybe it would; maybe it wouldn't. I still don't understand how the prospect that a law might be unconstitutional can be a reason for non-enforcement. In other words, it's still the law until stricken from the books. Right? A constitutional challenge would come later.

As much as anything, it's a matter of resources. District Attorneys (or whatever they are called in SC) have too much on their plates as it is. They're not likely to use their resources prosecuting adultery cases if there is a reasonable likelihood that a conviction would fall as unconstitutional. Plus, if the governor is the only person whose been charged with adultery in as long as anyone can remember, if I were his lawyer I'd argue selective prosecution. DAs have enough to do with serious crimes without messing with it.

On the other point, why would it matter where the adultery took place? Sanford and his wife are residents of South Carolina and fall under SC law. If he married his mistress, would he not be guilty of bigamy? Would it be perfectly fine for him to have wives in Argentina, Georgia, North Carolina, etc., just as long as he doesn't have two wives in SC? I think not. By the same token, it shouldn't matter where the adultery took place.

But it does. What constitutes the crime of adultery is sexual intercourse with someone other than your own spouse or with the spouse of someone else. If the intercourse doesn't happen in South Carolina, then no South Carolina law has been broken. No state can criminalize something that happens outside that state's jurisdiction.

Bigamy would work similarly. If the first marriage was entered into in South Carolina, and the second one in Georgia, then it is Georgia where the crime of bigamy would have been committed. What happens in SC or elsewhere is simply that the second "marriage" is not recognized. That is unless the bigamist comes back to SC and holds himself out as married to spouse number two there. I'm not sure, but that might create a situation where SC would have jurisdiction.

[Kevin]

From the perspective of someone who works in the area of family law, I hope bigamy/adultery are never declared illegal. While prosecutions never happen (and I don't really see the constitutional defect y'all are honing in on), the illegality does allow us to keep adultery from being claimed as grounds for divorce because as a practical matter, both of the alleged adulterers are going to invoke their 5th Amendment right to STFU when questioned about the alleged act or acts giving rise to the 'for cause' divorce.

In Oklahoma and probably most states, it doesn't make a lick of difference as to property division or anything else whether the divorce is granted for cause unless the proponent of that charge can further prove that there was an expenditure of marital resources in furtherance of the affair (usually tough to do).