A Tale of Two Attorney Generals

T

tsuke

New member
images (5).jpg

https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/2017/01/31/a-tale-of-two-attorney-generals/

A Tale of Two Attorney Generals

Yesterday President Trump fired the acting Attorney General Sally Yates. This came after she refused to defend the executive order in court as plaintiffs challenged portions of it. She said that the executive order was not consistent with her obligation to always stand for what is right nor does she believe that the executive order is lawful. Chuck Schumer said she was fired because she would not enforce an order she believed was illegal and unconstitutional.

This issue touches a pet peeve of mine on how Republicans and Democrats view the Attorney General and the powers of that office. This clash of ideas as to what the Attorney General actually is causes most of this friction.

Republicans

Republicans see the Attorney General as someone who implements existing law and represents the government in these cases. Like any lawyer they would look at ambiguities in the law and interpret them based on the needs or goals of its clients. Inevitably there would be other people with other interpretations of the law and they would argue about it in court. The Attorney General would represent the governments side and if he felt he couldn't he would resign. Once the case is over the way the Supreme Court would interpret the law would stand and the Attorney General and the rest of the administration would follow. This would be the traditional view of an Attorney General.

Democrats

Democrats have a different view of the Attorney General. Aside from the duties I outlined that the Republicans expect the Democratic AG is also required to make a value judgement on the issue. Aside from judging the legality or constitutionality of each law the Democratic AG must also personally agree with the stances taken by each law and executive order or he could refuse to prosecute and instruct the DOJ itself to refuse to prosecute. Essentially the AG would have veto power over the rest of the administration. This of course presents problems when you have a democratic AG working with a Republican administration or vice versa.

Over and above veto power over the executive branch democratic AG's are expected to wield veto power over the judicial and legislative branches as well. The supreme court can strike down all challenges to a law or order and can rule unanimously in its favor and the legislature can pass a bill with no opposing votes but if it does not meet the view of the AG they can unilaterally veto that by refusing to prosecute. Illegal immigration is a perfect example of this. The courts say you have the right to control your borders and there could be a law for it but if the AG does not want to punish anyone for breaking the law then it is moot.

The democrats are afraid of Trump being a dictator yet the amount of power they vest upon the AG is as close to a dictator as you will ever see. Once confirmed their version of the AG has the power of oversight on every other branch of government and can take unilateral decisions on that oversight. The AG cannot even be fired as he is acting on some sort of morality that is supposed to be unimpeachable.
 
Not to mention the fact that the last AG had to take the 5th rather than tell the truth under oath.....and the head of Obama's IRS did the same thing.....

yet Democrats see nothing wrong with their party and ignore how they politicized most of the gov. packing offices with left wing hacks and liars.
 
NOVA said:
Not to mention the fact that the last AG had to take the 5th rather than tell the truth under oath.....and the head of Obama's IRS did the same thing.....

yet Democrats see nothing wrong with their party and ignore how they politicized most of the gov. packing offices with left wing hacks and liars.
Click to expand...

The thing that annoys me the most is the unelected and appointed part of the government has veto power over the elected part :/

That is the case with the supreme court but that is specifically given to them. Not the various appointees.
 
tsuke said:
The thing that annoys me the most is the unelected and appointed part of the government has veto power over the elected part :/

That is the case with the supreme court but that is specifically given to them. Not the various appointees.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Courts power is limited....they do not have 'veto' power in the true sense of the word.....the constitutionality of laws is their domain and seeing that

elected officials do not exceed their constitutional authority with personal proclamations having the power of legislated law....

I just mentioned in another thread how Obama was stopped 13 times in his use of executive orders....
 
Yep. Obama politicized the DoJ to an extent never seen before,and that isn't good for Justice.
It's another creeping ex. of how hyper-partisanship is ruining good governance..

I hope Trump won't do the same, but he probably will. The way the Dems have been more then obstructionist to the point of deligitimizing since before he was even sworn in makes it all but a certainty.
 
NOVA said:
The Supreme Courts power is limited....they do not have 'veto' power in the true sense of the word.....the constitutionality of laws is their domain and seeing that

elected officials do not exceed their constitutional authority with personal proclamations having the power of legislated law....

I just mentioned in another thread how Obama was stopped 13 times in his use of executive orders....
Click to expand...

Yeah and I explained why they still have veto power. Consider immigration for example. Lets say the Supreme Court declares DACA unconstitutional or something. The republican AG would say ok. I say the democrat AG has veto power OVER the Supreme Court because the AG could just refuse to implement the decision or prosecute the illegals and the decision would effectively mean nothing.
 
tsuke said:
Yeah and I explained why they still have veto power. Consider immigration for example. Lets say the Supreme Court declares DACA unconstitutional or something. The republican AG would say ok. I say the democrat AG has veto power OVER the Supreme Court because the AG could just refuse to implement the decision or prosecute the illegals and the decision would effectively mean nothing.
Click to expand...
lol..what???

SCOTUS has ruled DARPA un-Constitutional in that it was an executive over-reach into the purview of Congressional legislating ability.
 
tsuke said:
Yeah and I explained why they still have veto power. Consider immigration for example. Lets say the Supreme Court declares DACA unconstitutional or something. The republican AG would say ok. I say the democrat AG has veto power OVER the Supreme Court because the AG could just refuse to implement the decision or prosecute the illegals and the decision would effectively mean nothing.
Click to expand...

My Lord, you don't anything about anything. Educate yourself.
 
anatta said:
lol..what???

SCOTUS has ruled DARPA un-Constitutional in that it was an executive over-reach into the purview of Congressional legislating ability.
Click to expand...

sigh. And I explained that whether they do so or not or whatever law congress passes or not the Attorney General has Veto power because he can just refuse to implement.

For example. Lets say Yates was the AG. Trump and the Congress pass a law saying that all illegals must be deported in 8 days. SC says its constitutional somehow. The AG under the democratic model can just say lol no and overule everything.
 
tsuke said:
Yeah and I explained why they still have veto power. Consider immigration for example. Lets say the Supreme Court declares DACA unconstitutional or something. The republican AG would say ok. I say the democrat AG has veto power OVER the Supreme Court because the AG could just refuse to implement the decision or prosecute the illegals and the decision would effectively mean nothing.
Click to expand...

That is why we have 3 EQUAL branches of government that include hundreds of individual voices.....
What your describing is the danger of politicizing the entire government with your own political hacks as Obama has almost done....

The checks and balances have worked pretty good for over 2 centuries and we still must be vigilant.

Which party walks in lock step?.....Which party has deserters within their own ranks ? That is for us as voters to contend with....

I do see your point though....
 
NOVA said:
That is why we have 3 EQUAL branches of government that include hundreds of individual voices.....
What your describing is the danger of politicizing the entire government with your own political hacks as Obama has almost done....

The checks and balances have worked pretty good for over 2 centuries and we still must be vigilant.

Which party walks in lock step?.....Which party has deserters within their own ranks ? That is for us as voters to contend with....

I do see your point though....
Click to expand...

thats the theory and how i pointed out the republican AG works. The democratic version of the AG works more like a dictator.
 
NOVA said:
That is why we have 3 EQUAL branches of government that include hundreds of individual voices.....
What your describing is the danger of politicizing the entire government with your own political hacks as Obama has almost done....

The checks and balances have worked pretty good for over 2 centuries and we still must be vigilant.

Which party walks in lock step?.....Which party has deserters within their own ranks ? That is for us as voters to contend with....

I do see your point though....
Click to expand...

You cons are so two-faced. You guys wanted the AG to speak out on Obama's actions but now that the shoe is on the other foot she was supposed to obey or else.

During Yates' confirmation hearing Sessions "grilled Yates on her responsibility to defend the Constitution and U.S. laws against then-President Barack Obama’s “unlawful” views.

“You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you need to say no,” Sessions said during the hearing. “If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?”

“Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president,” Yates replied."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-sh...inst-presidents-unlawful-views-151137405.html
 
christiefan915 said:
You cons are so two-faced. You guys wanted the AG to speak out on Obama's actions but now that the shoe is on the other foot she was supposed to obey or else.

During Yates' confirmation hearing Sessions "grilled Yates on her responsibility to defend the Constitution and U.S. laws against then-President Barack Obama’s “unlawful” views.

“You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you need to say no,” Sessions said during the hearing. “If the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?”

“Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president,” Yates replied."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-sh...inst-presidents-unlawful-views-151137405.html
Click to expand...

then say no and resign
 
christiefan915 said:
That's your response to Sessions' hypocrisy? Understandable.
Click to expand...

“Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president


Those are the EXACT words of Yates when she was asked the same question.......

She did give legal advice to Trump, she flatly refused to act declaring SHE viewed the request UN-constitutional even though the request was vetted by her own DOJ and deemed constitutional and lawful.....
She had every right to refuse and she should have resigned as was done in the case with Nixon.....
 
anatta said:
Yep. Obama politicized the DoJ to an extent never seen before,and that isn't good for Justice.
It's another creeping ex. of how hyper-partisanship is ruining good governance..

I hope Trump won't do the same, but he probably will. The way the Dems have been more then obstructionist to the point of deligitimizing since before he was even sworn in makes it all but a certainty.
Click to expand...

You ignorant lying shitstain.
Forgot about Dubya already.

STFU
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top