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

[Asclepias]

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?

So provide a link to where it says that. I cant find one. The AG wouldnt be enforcing that law. The IRS would.

 

[WillowTree]

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?

So provide a link to where it says that. I cant find one. The AG wouldnt be enforcing that law. The IRS would.

The IRS enforces immigration law?

 

[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.

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.

Once the AG takes the oath, they are required to follow the laws as written and not make their own. Otherwise you'd find all kinds of laws like prohibiting racial discrimination declared unconstitutional by some AG and not followed either.

Yes AGs have prosecutorial discretion, which does not include finding laws on the books unconstitutional.

 

[Katzndogz]

What you WILL have is an AG deciding laws against dumping toxins in the local stream are unconstitutional in exchange for an anonymous donation.

 

[novasteve]

I wonder if he'll approve of State AGs refusing to defund gun restrictions in courts.

 

[Seawytch]

I wonder if he'll approve of State AGs refusing to defund gun restrictions in courts.

You don't have to worry about the gun lobby being deFUNDed...the manufacturers have their back.

 

[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.

I guess you missed the beauty of having 3 separate branches of government.. Damn you are a dumbass!

 

[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.

Once the AG takes the oath, they are required to follow the laws as written and not make their own. Otherwise you'd find all kinds of laws like prohibiting racial discrimination declared unconstitutional by some AG and not followed either.

Yes AGs have prosecutorial discretion, which does not include finding laws on the books unconstitutional.

Holder doesn't say for the AG to make their own laws, He says to determine if the current law is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional and decide to not defend it. That is within the scope of their duties. Please show me where it is not.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Once the AG takes the oath, they are required to follow the laws as written and not make their own. Otherwise you'd find all kinds of laws like prohibiting racial discrimination declared unconstitutional by some AG and not followed either.

Yes AGs have prosecutorial discretion, which does not include finding laws on the books unconstitutional.

Holder doesn't say for the AG to make their own laws, He says to determine if the current law is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional and decide to not defend it. That is within the scope of their duties. Please show me where it is not.

They do it. It is NOT within the scope of their oath of office which is to uphold and defend the laws of their states. They do it illegally, which is what Eric "Crime Boss" Holder is telling them to do.

A law duly passed is NOT unconstitutional until a court of law makes that judgment. If AGs are both attorney and Judge we don't need to courtrooms, we have whim of the day. Which might be okay IF it's a whim you believe in. However if you have an AG that thinks it's unconstitutional to prosecute any white person for any crime at all against black people YOU have a problem.

 

[Katzndogz]

Eric Holider is nothing more than a consigliore for the obama crime family.

 

[Asclepias]

Once the AG takes the oath, they are required to follow the laws as written and not make their own. Otherwise you'd find all kinds of laws like prohibiting racial discrimination declared unconstitutional by some AG and not followed either.

Yes AGs have prosecutorial discretion, which does not include finding laws on the books unconstitutional.

Holder doesn't say for the AG to make their own laws, He says to determine if the current law is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional and decide to not defend it. That is within the scope of their duties. Please show me where it is not.

They do it. It is NOT within the scope of their oath of office which is to uphold and defend the laws of their states. They do it illegally, which is what Eric "Crime Boss" Holder is telling them to do.

A law duly passed is NOT unconstitutional until a court of law makes that judgment. If AGs are both attorney and Judge we don't need to courtrooms, we have whim of the day. Which might be okay IF it's a whim you believe in. However if you have an AG that thinks it's unconstitutional to prosecute any white person for any crime at all against black people YOU have a problem.

I have asked you a number of times to show me where it says they do not have this discretion. You keep missing that he said "discriminatory". Your example is the very essence of discriminatory. The AG cant look at a non discriminatory law and decide its discriminatory. He/she would be committing political suicide.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/virginia-ag-says-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-joins-federal-lawsuit-to-overturn/politics/2014/01/23/82145#.Uw0fzvldXKc

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Once the AG takes the oath, they are required to follow the laws as written and not make their own. Otherwise you'd find all kinds of laws like prohibiting racial discrimination declared unconstitutional by some AG and not followed either.

Yes AGs have prosecutorial discretion, which does not include finding laws on the books unconstitutional.

Holder doesn't say for the AG to make their own laws, He says to determine if the current law is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional and decide to not defend it. That is within the scope of their duties. Please show me where it is not.

You/ve already been shown numerous times, you're just too stupid to own it.

 

[Asclepias]

Once the AG takes the oath, they are required to follow the laws as written and not make their own. Otherwise you'd find all kinds of laws like prohibiting racial discrimination declared unconstitutional by some AG and not followed either.

Yes AGs have prosecutorial discretion, which does not include finding laws on the books unconstitutional.

Holder doesn't say for the AG to make their own laws, He says to determine if the current law is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional and decide to not defend it. That is within the scope of their duties. Please show me where it is not.

You/ve already been shown numerous times, you're just too stupid to own it.

No you havent. Please quote it so we can all see it.

 

[WillowTree]

Holder doesn't say for the AG to make their own laws, He says to determine if the current law is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional and decide to not defend it. That is within the scope of their duties. Please show me where it is not.

You/ve already been shown numerous times, you're just too stupid to own it.

No you havent. Please quote it so we can all see it.

I don't suffer fools lightly. Re read it or stfu.

 

[Asclepias]

You/ve already been shown numerous times, you're just too stupid to own it.

No you havent. Please quote it so we can all see it.

I don't suffer fools lightly. Re read it or stfu.

I did and its not there. If it was you would quote it fool.

 

[WillowTree]

No you havent. Please quote it so we can all see it.

I don't suffer fools lightly. Re read it or stfu.

I did and its not there. If it was you would quote it fool.

it's not my fault that some black people don't understand oaths and due process.

 

[Asclepias]

I don't suffer fools lightly. Re read it or stfu.

I did and its not there. If it was you would quote it fool.

it's not my fault that some black people don't understand oaths and due process.

I didnt blame you for anything. I asked you to back up your assertion. You cant.

 

[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.

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.

Go back to your mud hut in africa and work on your flash cards, you affirmative action moron. I'd rather have congressmen we elect decide constitutionality than unelected judges and AGs.

 

[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.

Go back to your mud hut in africa and work on your flash cards, you affirmative action moron. I'd rather have congressmen we elect decide constitutionality than unelected judges and AGs.

Go back to your cave in Europe. No one cares what you'd rather have happen.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

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.

Except there is no "legal process" at present for declaring a law unconstitutional. Federal judges simply do it even though the constitution says they can't.

AGs shouldn't be allowed to repeal laws either. Only legislators, and if we don't like it we can vote them out.