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

[Sunshine]

Well here's the thing. A state can choose not to enforce a law, but you might want to consider for a minute whose responsibility it is to enforce the law and what your avenue is for redress should you be harmed because said law was deliberately not enforced.

NOW, if a citizen decides a law is not Constitutional and breaks that law, he will be arrested and tried according to due process procedures. It would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get the law struck down. There was a judge way back there who was always disobeying 'illegal' laws, and he was always getting thrown in jail. But the case would work it's way up the system until the law was struck down. I can't recall that judge's name. The only one that comes to mind is Learned Hand and I don't think it was him..

 

[jillian]

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.

actually, federal law trumps state law.

so what are you talking about?

 

[WillowTree]

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.

They take an oath to defend the laws of their perspective states. If they don't like the laws they have sworn to defend then they should get the hell out of office and that includes obummer and holder

 

[Sunshine]

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.

The way things stand right now, the police have great discretion regarding who gets hauled in. That is why you don't get a ticket every time you get stopped. They decide if the action was worth prosecuting. That helps keep the court dockets manageable.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

actually, federal law trumps state law.

so what are you talking about?

well obummer and hold em don't uphold the federal laws so they should get their lying asses out of office.

 

[Sunshine]

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.

actually, federal law trumps state law.

so what are you talking about?

The laws governing marriage are state laws.

 

[jillian]

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.

actually, federal law trumps state law.

so what are you talking about?

The laws governing marriage are state laws.

as status laws... not if they violate the equal protection clause or violate some other fundamental right.

see Loving v Virginia

you're welcomoe

 

[Sunshine]

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.

Ass lickem is nothing but a BOR - Big Ole Racist. He is never going to get it because he doesn't want to get it.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

actually, federal law trumps state law.

so what are you talking about?

The laws governing marriage are state laws.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

They take an oath to defend the laws of their perspective states. If they don't like the laws they have sworn to defend then they should get the hell out of office and that includes obummer and holder

Not if those laws are unconstitutional. From what I understand an AG can be voted out in most states correct?

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-
tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California;

 

[WillowTree]

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.

They take an oath to defend the laws of their perspective states. If they don't like the laws they have sworn to defend then they should get the hell out of office and that includes obummer and holder

Not if those laws are unconstitutional. From what I understand an AG can be voted out in most states correct?

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-
tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California;

They are constitutional until a court of law says they are not, until they have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the states and the USOA. you got that now?

 

[HenryBHough]

In most states officials can be removed from office for nonfeasance.

And should be.

Quickly.

 

[Asclepias]

They take an oath to defend the laws of their perspective states. If they don't like the laws they have sworn to defend then they should get the hell out of office and that includes obummer and holder

Not if those laws are unconstitutional. From what I understand an AG can be voted out in most states correct?

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-
tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California;

They are constitutional until a court of law says they are not, until they have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the states and the USOA. you got that now?

Good thing he didn't say for the AG to make those laws unconstitutional. He only said the below which is within their job description to do.

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

 

[WillowTree]

Not if those laws are unconstitutional. From what I understand an AG can be voted out in most states correct?

They are constitutional until a court of law says they are not, until they have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the states and the USOA. you got that now?

Good thing he didn't say for the AG to make those laws unconstitutional. He only said the below which is within their job description to do.

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

They are duty bound to defend them by oath until they are ruled unconstitutional. Period.

 

[Asclepias]

They are constitutional until a court of law says they are not, until they have sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the states and the USOA. you got that now?

Good thing he didn't say for the AG to make those laws unconstitutional. He only said the below which is within their job description to do.

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

They are duty bound to defend them by oath until they are ruled unconstitutional. Period.

Where is that written? Do you have a link?

 

[Katzndogz]

A sympathetic AG might well find laws against rape unconstitutional. It might be a man who thinks that the women are always asking for it and the male is just accommodating an ungrateful woman.

 

[Katzndogz]

Good thing he didn't say for the AG to make those laws unconstitutional. He only said the below which is within their job description to do.

They are duty bound to defend them by oath until they are ruled unconstitutional. Period.

Where is that written? Do you have a link?

The oath of the attorney general.

'I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; 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.'


Read more: What is the oath of office of the US Attorney General? | Answerbag What is the oath of office of the US Attorney General? | Answerbag

 

[HenryBHough]

Ah there's the problem!

Because that oath refers to "God" it's unconstitutional and need not be honored.

 

[WillowTree]

Good thing he didn't say for the AG to make those laws unconstitutional. He only said the below which is within their job description to do.

They are duty bound to defend them by oath until they are ruled unconstitutional. Period.

Where is that written? Do you have a link?

It's written in the oath they take, The oath doesn't say I swear to uphold the laws of this nation or state unless I think they're unconstitutional. Dummie, we have a thing called due process. so,,, say if I agree with your argument it'd be okay for a state to refuse to uphold the obamacare law cause they think it might be unconstitutional huh?

 

[Asclepias]

A sympathetic AG might well find laws against rape unconstitutional. It might be a man who thinks that the women are always asking for it and the male is just accommodating an ungrateful woman.

Thats why you vote in an AG that doesn't think like that or vote them out if they do. You realize they do this already dont you? They weigh whether or not to pursue a case and sometimes its not for very noble reasons like trying to comply with the constitution.