Attorney General Eric Holder is taking the lawless attitude of the Obama administration and passing it down to state attorneys general. Yesterday during an interview with The New York Times, Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, specifically when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. —Katie Pavlich, Townhall
But State Attorneys General represent their states; the state they represent is the State Attorney General’s client … so when the state legislature passes a bill, and the governor signs that bill into law, the State Attorney General incurs a legal obligation to enforce that law, and defend that law in courts of law.
Mr Holder, on the other hand, is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States.
What do you think about Holder telling state attorneys general that they do not have to enforce the laws of their state?
Mr Holder, on the other hand, is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States.
What do you think about Holder telling state attorneys general that they do not have to enforce the laws of their state?
43 comments:
I think that it is improper and unnecessary. It is nowhere in the scope of the US AGs job, to dispense unsolicited advice to the Stats. It is also a waste of time, as the specific issue he based this advice on, is trending heavily in his desired direction due to lack of standing by the states.
Holder's statement is all about "the fundamental transformation of America." We should not expect him to respect the United States Constitution.
OK, then what, exactly, is the purpose of having such law(s) to begin with? Perhaps I don't understand what he means. I, personally, believe that we have way too many laws in the first place but I'm sure that's not [his] point.
Obozo made it even worse when he said he would not enforce the laws against illegals. And now he's rewriting obamacare any way he wishes. Laws are supposed to be written by legislatures and enforced by the president but obozo says hell with that.
Well garsh, Shaw ... why don't you 'splain it to us sos we won't be so dad burn ignant.
Please don't blame Shaw or be to hard on her, she has every right to be stupid
Shaw has every right to be Stupid...We all realize that her dream is seeing Obumbler and the First Moocher the king and Queen of the USA . But show SOME integrity, you
idiot lying sack. At least, for once, ADMIT the truth. Admit that Fast and Furious was a stupidity authorized on Holder's and Obumbler's watch.
Barack Obumbler invoked Executive Privilege and so his stooge Eric Holder refused to release some 1,500 pages of documents because they were concerned about an "on going investigations" and that effectively stonewalled the entire investigation! And so there’s where the problem lies.
Holder is disrupting the legal system thru selective enforcement of the law. Reid & Pelosi have disrupted the legislative system by making a sick joke of it, while Obama has done his best to just go around it with his czars.
Obama never really wanted to "transform" America; he wanted to destroy it.
From Z:
I do hope that those who don't quite understand our Constitution or the duties of the Attorney General will PLEASE describe how Holder's statement is correct.
THAT is hilarious!!!!!!!!!
MUSTANG: I was going to ask that you post this subject; Thanks SO MUCH for reading my mind. Excellent.
Ya, hey, you guys in law enforcement...let's just let YOU decide what laws YOU like and go for it. WHY NOT?
Why is this not being made a bigger thing than it is, because it's a bigger threat to our country than almost anything in the last few years, in my opinion.
IRS scandal, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obama Care...ALL those things are horrible ...but an Attorney General advising State Attorneys General what HE advised?
THAT's America? That's Constitutional? HOW? Please tell us, SOMEONE!
Here's the thing; Holders actions were improper and unprofessional.....but not unconstitutional. They weren't directives, they weren't mandates, and they weren't official guidance.
They carry no weight of legal force or persuasion....so they remain in the realm of ignorant statements.
@CI:
No..but they clearly demonstrate his contempt for the rule of law, (demonstrated countless times already with F&F, before Congress,etc.) the constitution and his ignorance of the 10th Amendment...which I'm certain he'd rather it not exist.
The man, in his heart and actions is a New Black panther.
"No..but they clearly demonstrate his contempt for the rule of law........the constitution and his ignorance of the 10th Amendment."
Agreed. I'm not sure any elected representative, appointee or bureaucrat within the beltway understands or supports the 10th Amendment. Same as it ever was.
The president (and his cabinet) have great latitude deciding which laws to enforce, and which to ignore. This seems wrong to me—but then I am relatively sane.
From GeeeZ:
Sam, I think any SANE person is going INsane with the implications of Holder's statement and how it destroys our rule of law.
"Hey, you want that law, you defend it, you don't...ignore it...you're cool, man, you're a democrat....just keep the faith. We're almost there..enough of this constitution; it's got us nowhere.."
Ya, someone will say "but Holder didn't delineate the party and so YOU, Z, are being biased"...right.
Imagine what he'd do if some Republican AG ignored a law HE hates? :-)
The history of left-wing policies
As with everything else, the history of the Democrats policies is dark, racist, and the very definition of evil - including minimum wage:
So where did the concept originate from?
“Well, they very clearly had an idea to get rid of the lower classes – a sort of Eugenic way to get rid of people who are inferior,” Stu explained. “They would price them out of the labor market so they wouldn’t have jobs.”
Sidney Webb, English economist and co-Founder of the Fabian Society in the early 1900s, believed that establishing a minimum wage above the value of “the unemployables” as he called them, would lock them out of the market thus eliminating them as a class.
“Of all ways of dealing with these unfortunate parasites the most ruinous to the community is to allow them unrestrainedly to compete as wage earners,” Webb said.
That was actually a common sentiment in America at the time. in America shared this belief as well. Around the same time, a Princeton economist said this:
“It is much better to enact a minimum-wage law even if it deprives these unfortunates of work… better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.”
Who was that Princeton economist? Royal Meeker, U.S. Commissioner of Labor, under Woodrow Wilson.
Why don't you Liberals’s take credit for the things you are actually responsible for - like Abortion and Debt!
That makes much more sense.
I'm not sure what he means by enforcing gay marriage laws.
It's either legal or it isn't in a particular state.
Next my right wing brethren will produce a period when prosecutors did not exercise discretion.
The significant point here is the ability of the phrase "gay marriage" to put their thought processes into vapor lock.
State Attorneys General represent their states; the state they represent is the State Attorney General’s client … so when the state legislature passes a bill, and the governor signs that bill into law, the State Attorney General incurs a legal obligation to enforce that law, and defend that law in courts of law.
This is precisely what Jerry Brown did as the Calif AG. He refused to defend Prop 8, and anyone else who stepped up to the plate to do his job for him was told they didn't have legal standing. Now we have a rogue AG like Holder cheerleading this. We know he and the President and their puppet master have no respect for the law or constitution.
Let's put it this way. If either Holder or Obama were married and said "I love my wife and value my wife and uphold her highest interests as mine" would you believe them if they argued constantly with their wives, put down their ideas, continually dated other women, left them defenseless when they were under attack and excused those who attempted to assault them? How long would anyone put up with them parroting 'but I love my wife' when every action on their part demonstrated otherwise?
As for the constitution? You get the point.
One might consider signing statements to be disrespectful of the Constitution as well.
The law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted. Hab 1:4
When an Attorney General rejects the forces that bring unity and stability to a society which he has responsibility for (law and justice) and perverts his 'role' into a commissar, we are in trouble. When a large contingent of the society applauds that ... we are in deep trouble.
Read on for yourself. What follows was not pretty.
@Rotweiller:
"better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.”
Wow...isn't that un PC talk punishable by death now?
@Ducky:
"It's either legal or it isn't in a particular state..."
As it should be since it's the state that issues marriage certificates, or doesn't.
@CI:
"Holders actions were improper and unprofessional.....but not unconstitutional..."
And this is wholly unacceptable from a "Top Cop". This is not what we expect from an AG..any AG...this man has suggested to ignore the law. Next time a cop stops me for speeding...I'll say it's an unacceptable burden to me and it's discriminatory.
Lying isn't a violation of the Constitution either, but it is certainly deplorable from those entrusted with our highest offices. It is like saying that Bill Clinton's blow job wasn't really sex ... no harm, no foul, and rationalizations ad nauseam, but the fact is ... as Baysider writes, there is harm done to society, over all. Little bites, just little bites, and most people just don't seem to care, which could be the saddest story of all.
When this charade of an administration is over and the historians take over, they will have a field day over the Obama administration flaunting the law. Law schools will be studying this crap for decades to come.
Yeah. I know this was Holder's caper, but he does not act without Obama's approval.
@Sam:
We're way beyond the point of no return Sam.
Imp, I agree. Find me a politician these days who's remotely acceptable, in their regard for the Constitution and civil liberties. I hope you apply the same standards to signing statements.
@Imp ---
As it should be since it's the state that issues marriage certificates, or doesn't.
-----
I certainly don't disagree.
I still don't understand what the deal is with Holder telling AG's not to enforce marriage laws.
Just what isn't going to be enforced?
" It is like saying that Bill Clinton's blow job wasn't really sex ..,
Oh, how we need another good sex scandal in the White House. Has Michelle been seen with Holder, or one of Barack's aides?
@Ducky "I still don't understand what the deal is with Holder telling AG's not to enforce marriage laws.
Just what isn't going to be enforced?"
It's real simple. The federal government cannot, constitutionally, tell any state which laws to enforce, or not enforce. Whatever is not enumerated in the Constitution as the responsibility of the Federal Government is left to the states. In this case that includes pretty much anything that has to do with marriage.
As you know, Duck, same sex marriage is a hot topic all over the nation. Like you ,I don't think it should be a big deal, but it is. That's reality.
@CI:
I'm not a partisan hack....I condemn all of them and hold them to the same standards of objectivity and compliance with the law...that they swore an oath to defend.
@Ducky:
Damn good question.
Imp - "I'm not a partisan hack......."
I didn't mean to imply that, my apologies. It just frustrates me that our nation has grown so used to signing statements, that they've essentially become the norm, yet they're still technically in violation of the Constitution.
As well as a middle finger to the people.
Bob - "Whatever is not enumerated in the Constitution as the responsibility of the Federal Government is left to the states."
Correct, though the States are still required to show a rational basis for exclusionary legislation. The 'will of the people' cannot violate the Constitution.
There is so much arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity in the minds of today’s progressives that I simply cannot comprehend the extent of it. . It seems to me that where reason once prevailed in the days of the former Democratic party of Truman and Kennedy, insanity now reigns. I personally don’t care why, but this is proof that you really can’t fix stupid. I wouldn’t even know where to begin.
Nothing can be so amusingly arrogant as a person who just doesn't have a sense of humor. It seems to me that the progressive’s are at war with America.
@CI:
Look...you've got a good head. I like your thought process and comments. If I thought that's what you had implied... you can bet I'd call you out on it. Not that I'm in total agreement with all your positions...lol
;-)
Imp - Wha? But all of my positions rock!
@Ci:
Yea...and there's two kinds of people in the world. Think about it!
A-, I'm keeping score.
The only way to deal with these libtard vermin is sue them back to the stone age. An AG that violates the state law should be tossed.
If we had anyone in congress interested in anything beside their wallet and sex life, we'd have seen obama impeached several times by now.
IMP, If you'd watch Team America, you'd find there are not 2 but 3 kinds of people. I'll send it to ya.
@Kid:
"An AG that violates the state law should be tossed..."
Starting with the quisling in Virginia?
My contribution to this discussion is simply an observation that Holder is unethical. Of course, so too is the entire Obama administration. In fact, even the word "administration" could be an over-statement. More like a tribe of heathens without a chieftain.
An official of federal or state government is negligent when he or she fails to exercise due care or diligence in performing the duties and responsibilities of his or her office. A person is negligent in the performance of their duty or responsibility when they fail to follow law, regulation, or policy—which it is their duty to do, when they intentionally circumvent law or regulation, when they are negligent in their duty by reason of carelessness, or through omission, suggesting that such negligence was unintentional—even when the results of omission are serious.
Holder took an oath of office, which reads in part, “… that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.” The duties of the Attorney General are outlined in 28 USC 509.
When Eric Holder, as an officer of the court, encourages other top attorneys to violate their solemn duty to the states they were elected to serve, then we might conclude that Holder has stepped beyond the scope of his official duties, and that he either did it intentionally, or because he is dumb as a rock. He cannot make the argument that it was an error of omission unless he graduated from the Chicago School of Law.
If the House of Representatives were doing its job, it might initiate impeachment proceedings against Holder for engaging in the kind of behavior that falls outside the scope of his official duty. I do understand impeachment would be futile with the Senate in the hands of Harry Reid, however—and the law does allow so many loopholes for these Washington elites. This leaves us with few options, among which is tarring and feathering, which has worked in the past.
The LA Times (a strong supporter of same-sex marriage) has alertly identified the issue as primarily one of free speech. The 1st amendment gives you the right to express your own views and to not be compelled to express someone elses!
It follows that you should clearly be able to distinguish between a business that provides the same product or service to all comers and 'those who collaborate in the creation of a personalized message.'
Mr. Holder, call your office!
Post a Comment