The exchange was consentual.

“Secondly, you’re arguing that law enforcement should only uphold the laws it thinks are valid.”

They already ignore laws. In most cities jaywalking is illegal, but almost never gets prosecuted.

“If law enforcement should take on that kind of decision making, where does the will of the people come into play?”

When the tyranny of the majority clashes with individual freedom, individual freedom should win. We’re talking about eavesdropping on citizens and prohibiting a consentual transaction between two willful parties that did not impinge on others (other than his wife, in a civil manner).

The exchange was consentual. He got what he wanted and she got what she wanted. This is not a matter of national security. It is a matter of wasting government resources.

“Secondly, you’re arguing that law enforcement should only uphold the laws it thinks are valid.”

They already do this. Note the number of illegal acts, such as jaywalking, that rarely if ever get prosecuted. The range of “unlawful” acts that get ignored should be widened to the point where we don’t feel like big brother is watching over us and punishing us for not following his collective will.

“If law enforcement should take on that kind of decision making, where does the will of the people come into play?”

You say “will of the people”, I say “tyranny of the majority.” I’m concerned with individual freedom. Without that, our government stands for nothing.

Secondly, you’re arguing that law enforcement should only uphold the laws it thinks are valid. If law enforcement should take on that kind of decision making, where does the will of the people come into play? Prostitution can be legalized by any state — if the people of New York wanted it to be legal, they should vote in politicians who will legalize it. Otherwise, as long as it’s a crime, law enforcement has the responsibility to enforce it. And it sure as hell as the responsibility to hold the governor to the same standard as any other joe.

Yes. If our government were supposed to uphold bad laws we’d still be loyal British subjects. We don’t want our hard earned tax money used against us to invade our privacy and take away our freedoms.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Our government shouldn’t waste resources on stuff like this. Only his wife holds any claim on damages done by Spitzer and that can be taken care of in Civil court, if she so chooses, without wasting federal criminal investigative tax dollars.

Are you arguing that the government shouldn’t uphold the law? It actually started as a New York state thing and didn’t become federal until Spitzer hired a prostitute to cross state lines. I mean, we can argue that prostitution should be legal but I don’t see the value in arguing that the government shouldn’t enforce the law. Even Spitzer himself busted up some prostitution rings when he was AG. Bet he used wiretaps too.

No the real issue is money laundering, and he probably will be forced to resign over that.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/spitzer.money/index.html

Your point about political favors was a good one. I hadn’t actually thought about it, but it’s obvious in retrospect. And while the apology may not have been a legal admission of guilt, it was close. I’ll be looking to see a resignation in the very near future.