Click here to return to the Post and Courier
Governor makes case for service in Reserves


BY CLAY BARBOUR
Of the Post and Courier Staff

COLUMBIA--In a move Wednesday that seemed to surprise justices, Gov. Mark Sanford addressed the S.C. Supreme Court in defense of his desire to maintain both his position as head of the state and his standing as a member of the U.S. Air Force Reserves.

"I want to make it very clear that whatever you decide, I will abide by," the governor said. "I am a father and a husband first, a governor second and a reservist third. But I feel my experience in the Reserves has made me a better father and a better governor."

Sanford's comments came at the end of oral arguments in a case brought by Edward Sloan Jr., a retired Greenville construction company owner who contends that Sanford's status as a lieutenant in the Air Force Reserves violates a provision of the state constitution.

Article 4, Section 2 of the South Carolina Constitution reads in part, "No person while Governor shall hold any office or other commission (except in the militia) under the authority of this State, or of any other power."Sanford, who received a first lieutenant's commission in the Reserves in January 2002, has maintained that the Reserves are a form of militia.

"A militia is a group of citizen soldiers, and the Reserves are citizen soldiers," said Vance Bettis, Sanford's lawyer.

The justices grilled both sides Wednesday on the issue of what the constitution's framers meant when they wrote the provision in the 1770s.

"At the time when this was written, there was no such thing as the Air Force Reserves," said Chief Justice Jean Toal. "Can we then, based on circumstances of that time, discern why this provision is in there and what it means?"

Attorneys for both sides agreed that the provision originated from the state's experiences with royal governors before the nation's independence.

Sloan's attorney, James Carpenter, argued that the state was concerned about a governor with divided loyalties. Carpenter said the same holds true today and referenced Sanford's Reserve status.

"I think this is an issue of undivided attention," Carpenter said.

But justices quickly rebuffed his point.

"Under that notion, the governor should not be married," Justice Costa Pleicones said.

Sanford is not the first governor to hold a position in the Reserves during his tenure. James Cross, an archivist with the Strom Thurmond Institute, said Thurmond was a member of the U.S. Army Reserves during his stint as governor.

During his address to the court Wednesday, Sanford said he fell in love with the military during his six years in Congress. This led him to join the Reserves rather late in life.

"I want my four boys to serve in the military," he said, "and I have always believed in leading by example."

Sanford said his experience in the Reserves has given him the chance to see things from a different perspective.

"I am at the top of an organization here, but once a month I am at the bottom of a leadership organization," he said. "And that perspective has made me a better governor."

If the court rules that Sanford should resign his commission, he will do so voluntarily, he said. The court has no power to make him resign because it is a federal commission and not a state office.

Sanford's speech to the court was highly unusual for a Supreme Court proceeding and seemed to take the justices off guard. Toal informed the governor that while it was not customary, she would allow it.

After the hearing, Sanford said he had not been in court before and was unaware that his request was so strange.

"If there was any breach, in terms of protocol, I apologize," he said. "I just had something on my mind."

Sloan met with the press shortly after the hearing. When asked about the governor's comments he said, "Should that affect the court?"

Sloan said he took up this case because he believes in defending the constitution as written.

"I have no opinion about his capabilities to do the job; my sole issue is the constitution," he said.

No timeline has been set for a ruling. Typically justices discuss a case the day it is heard and come to a decision fairly quickly. Then the long process of writing the opinion begins. During this period, justices have been known to change their minds on an issue.

Said Carpenter about expecting a verdict, "It could be a day, a week or a year."


Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/120403/sta_04sanford.shtml