AG Eric Holder tells states to ignore laws they think are unconstitutional!!!

[ShootSpeeders]

Holder is talking about laws that ban same-sex marriage but what about affirmative action and anti-gun laws. Many conservatives think those laws are unconstitutional.

Eric Holder: State AGs Don't Have to Defend Gay Marriage Bans | TIME.com

Feb. 24, 2014
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a New York Times interview published Monday that state attorneys general aren’t required to defend laws they consider discriminatory, including bans on same-sex marriage.

Holder said that state attorneys general should carefully analyze laws that raise major constitutional issues before deciding whether to defend them.

“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Holder told the Times.

To make his case, Holder said that if he were an attorney general “in Kansas in 1953,” he “would not have defended a Kansas statute that put in place separate-but-equal facilities.”

Six state attorneys general have decided against defending their states’ same-sex marriage bans from challenges, inviting criticism from those who argue an attorney general’s job is to defend their respective state’s laws regardless of their personal attitudes towards those laws.

 

[novasteve]

I'm sure libs would love for ags to not defend state affirmative action laws from attack

 

[OriginalShroom]

He is really opening a can of worms... But that is exactly what he and Obama did when they refused to defend DOMA.

 

[JakeStarkey]

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a New York Times interview published Monday that state attorneys general aren’t required to defend laws they consider discriminatory, including bans on same-sex marriage.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

I'm all for ending this system where the courts decide if a law is constitutional or not, but letting AGs do it is a problem also. Neither AGs nor courts are supposed to repeal laws. We should leave it up to the state legislatures to write the laws they wish and to nullify federal laws they think are unconstitutional. If the voters disapprove, they can vote them out.

 

[whitehall]

For an A.G. who is ducking prosecution for the illegal shipment of firearms to Mexico, Holder seems to have a lot to say about Constitutional law. Why is it democrat presidents always appoint crooks to cover their asses? JFK had his brother, Clinton had big dumb Janet Reno (and Holder) and Barry Hussein has the guy who arranged for the pardon of the most notorious corporate crook up to that time in exchange for a million dollar donation to Clinton's library.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

He is really opening a can of worms... But that is exactly what he and Obama did when they refused to defend DOMA.

Yes indeed. Then 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.

 

[jillian]

Holder is talking about laws that ban same-sex marriage but what about affirmative action and anti-gun laws. Many conservatives think those laws are unconstitutional.

but the court DOESN'T think they're unconstitutional.

*shrug*

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So does that make him a racist for supporting nullification?

 

[Asclepias]

Hooray for Holder. First and foremost you should be upholding the constitution.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is how nations become lawless. When people lose faith that the law will be enforced, they stop obeying the law.

 

[Victory67]

Not very smart.

This opens the doors for Attorney Generals to order all DAs to ignore State gun laws that they find to be unConstitutional.

Not Holder's brightest moment.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm all for ending this system where the courts decide if a law is constitutional or not, but letting AGs do it is a problem also. Neither AGs nor courts are supposed to repeal laws. We should leave it up to the state legislatures to write the laws they wish and to nullify federal laws they think are unconstitutional. If the voters disapprove, they can vote them out.

You are not too bright. If all the voters in Mississippi wanted to vote for slavery to be legal it would be unconstitutional and hence struck down.

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm all for ending this system where the courts decide if a law is constitutional or not, but letting AGs do it is a problem also. Neither AGs nor courts are supposed to repeal laws. We should leave it up to the state legislatures to write the laws they wish and to nullify federal laws they think are unconstitutional. If the voters disapprove, they can vote them out.

You are not too bright. If all the voters in Mississippi wanted to vote for slavery to be legal it would be unconstitutional and hence struck down.

You are confusing a legal process under which a law is found to be unconstitutional and one person deciding the law should no longer apply. When one person gets to decide independently which laws will be followed and which will be ignored you have tyranny. You depend not on what the law says, but how the person in charge feels about the law and how well connected the person is who violated the law.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm all for ending this system where the courts decide if a law is constitutional or not, but letting AGs do it is a problem also. Neither AGs nor courts are supposed to repeal laws. We should leave it up to the state legislatures to write the laws they wish and to nullify federal laws they think are unconstitutional. If the voters disapprove, they can vote them out.

You are not too bright. If all the voters in Mississippi wanted to vote for slavery to be legal it would be unconstitutional and hence struck down.

You are confusing a legal process under which a law is found to be unconstitutional and one person deciding the law should no longer apply. When one person gets to decide independently which laws will be followed and which will be ignored you have tyranny. You depend not on what the law says, but how the person in charge feels about the law and how well connected the person is who violated the law.

You are the one confused. A single judge can rule a law unconstitutional. Thats 1 person making the decision.

 

[WillowTree]

This is how nations become lawless. When people lose faith that the law will be enforced, they stop obeying the law.

Why should the people obey the law when obummer and holder don't?

 

[Katzndogz]

You are not too bright. If all the voters in Mississippi wanted to vote for slavery to be legal it would be unconstitutional and hence struck down.

You are confusing a legal process under which a law is found to be unconstitutional and one person deciding the law should no longer apply. When one person gets to decide independently which laws will be followed and which will be ignored you have tyranny. You depend not on what the law says, but how the person in charge feels about the law and how well connected the person is who violated the law.

You are the one confused. A single judge can rule a law unconstitutional. Thats 1 person making the decision.

You still don't get it and that has to be deliberate. A judge is empowered to interpret the law and does not act independently, an attorney general's power only extends to enforcing the law. Suppose an attorney general decided to interpret all attacks on black males to be constitutional and stopped enforcing any laws that prohibit such random attacks. Is that right? No. The AG is supposed to enforce the law, not make it and not change it.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is how nations become lawless. When people lose faith that the law will be enforced, they stop obeying the law.

Why should the people obey the law when obummer and holder don't?

If enough officials decide to ignore laws they don't like, then we no longer have the rule of law. It will turn into utter corruption. If someone wants a law enforced, they will have to depend on political patronage or bribery to get justice. Like the system in mexico.

 

[Asclepias]

You are confusing a legal process under which a law is found to be unconstitutional and one person deciding the law should no longer apply. When one person gets to decide independently which laws will be followed and which will be ignored you have tyranny. You depend not on what the law says, but how the person in charge feels about the law and how well connected the person is who violated the law.

You are the one confused. A single judge can rule a law unconstitutional. Thats 1 person making the decision.

You still don't get it and that has to be deliberate. A judge is empowered to interpret the law and does not act independently, an attorney general's power only extends to enforcing the law. Suppose an attorney general decided to interpret all attacks on black males to be constitutional and stopped enforcing any laws that prohibit such random attacks. Is that right? No. The AG is supposed to enforce the law, not make it and not change it.

No I do get it. I dont think you do. Holder said they did not have to defend the law which is in their rights as AG. A judge can independently declare a law unconstitutional. They do it all the time.

There is no law saying that you are allowed to attack black males like you are describing and if there was it would be unconstitutional. Try another analogy that makes sense.

 

[Asclepias]

This is how nations become lawless. When people lose faith that the law will be enforced, they stop obeying the law.

Why should the people obey the law when obummer and holder don't?

If enough officials decide to ignore laws they don't like, then we no longer have the rule of law. It will turn into utter corruption. If someone wants a law enforced, they will have to depend on political patronage or bribery to get justice. Like the system in mexico.

"Dont like" and "unconstitutional" are 2 different things. You are confusing yourself again.