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

[Asclepias]

The documentation is in the oath they swear when they take the position. They swear to uphold and to defend the laws. They do not swear to use discretion.

But they do swear to uphold the laws in the constitution of the United States before the state constitution. The US constitution has laws that say discrimination is wrong. No matter what the state says is ok.

Then why isn't his stupid ass going after Californis, Colorado, Washington and Oregon? They are all breaking FEDERAL law?

whos stupid ass?

 

[WillowTree]

But they do swear to uphold the laws in the constitution of the United States before the state constitution. The US constitution has laws that say discrimination is wrong. No matter what the state says is ok.

Then why isn't his stupid ass going after Californis, Colorado, Washington and Oregon? They are all breaking FEDERAL law?

whos stupid ass?

Doh!

 

[Asclepias]

Then why isn't his stupid ass going after Californis, Colorado, Washington and Oregon? They are all breaking FEDERAL law?

whos stupid ass?

Doh!

Never heard of the guy. What state is he the AG of?

 

[Silhouette]

The documentation is in the oath they swear when they take the position. They swear to uphold and to defend the laws. They do not swear to use discretion.

Correct. For that would be tyranny.

I'll tell you something else too. AGs are not the only ones who take that Oath of Office. County clerks take it too. Only the US Supreme Court shut them down and without an explanation in California when the San Diego county clerk appealed the Prop 8 decision for clarity so he could execute his job properly. You cannot simultaneously require a public servant to take an oath and then require him to break it in a shady judicial move that had no explanation. We are inching so close to a fascist situation with these activists non-elected judges that it is very unnerving.

For that matter, any person in California because of the initiative system and the way their Constitution is written, has the power and standing to challenge Prop 8's validity because they affirm in their Constitution that an individual's vote has paramount power in that state:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SECTION 1. All political power is inherent in the people.
Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit,
and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good
may require...

...CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL


SEC. 2.5. A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance
with the laws of this State shall have that vote counted.... http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_2

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So Holder supports nullification of laws? Interesting.

We let federal judges do it even though the constitution says they can't.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Holder may not be the worst AG this country has had but he's in the top ten in my view.

Top ten? He hates white people, he hates america, and he hates the rule of law. Who's close to being that awful?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

A prosecutor can use discretion and they do it every day. They feel that there isn't enough evidence, or they can't prove up a case. Prosecutorial discretion is not a vehicle to exercise because the AG doesn't like the law. If that were true you might well find that prosecutors who think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional would just stop prosecutions under that law. If we are to have the rule of law, the people have to trust that those charged with enforcing the law will do so. Otherwise we have basic lawlessness where people are justified in taking the law into their own hands, knowing that they cannot get justice in the courtroom.

I agree it's bad to let AGs repeal laws but we let judges do it. Does that make any more sense?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Go back and read Holders comments. He said to use discretion if the law was discriminatory. Since the Civil Rights Act is non discriminatory and AG would fail massively trying to explain how they perceived it as discriminatory law. You guys are fumbling all over yourselves trying to explain it away and its not working. Holder just gave the state AG's additional support in their inherent duties of using discretion.

Affirmative action is unquestionably discriminatory. I'ts MEANT to be. So are states free to ignore federal demands for AA?

 

[Asclepias]

So Holder supports nullification of laws? Interesting.

We let federal judges do it even though the constitution says they can't.

You do realize a supreme court justice is a federal judge right? You have to be trolling your own thread. You cant possibly be this stupid.

 

[Asclepias]

Go back and read Holders comments. He said to use discretion if the law was discriminatory. Since the Civil Rights Act is non discriminatory and AG would fail massively trying to explain how they perceived it as discriminatory law. You guys are fumbling all over yourselves trying to explain it away and its not working. Holder just gave the state AG's additional support in their inherent duties of using discretion.

Affirmative action is unquestionably discriminatory. I'ts MEANT to be. So are states free to ignore federal demands for AA?

AA is not discriminatory. Yes states are free to ignore those demands. They just have to pay the consequences if someone decides to go after them.

 

[mudwhistle]

Where does it specifically say he can use discretion dumbass? That is the question. The answer is it doesn't. He took an oath to defend and uphold the law. Period. If he disagrespes with a law he must go through due process. But you're as dumb as a box of rocks. That much we know about you.

No. The question is what I asked you. Where does it specifically state in the oath that the AG cannot use discretion? You cannot show me that. On the other hand Holder has just specified that the AG's can use discretion. See how that works?

Here are the duties for the state of GA for example.

Duties | AGO

Providing opinions on legal questions concerning the State of Georgia or its agencies, which are binding on all state agencies and departments.

Where is your documentation to support your opinion willowtree?

The documentation is in the oath they swear when they take the position. They swear to uphold and to defend the laws. They do not swear to use discretion.

I see nothing in the oath that says he has to uphold the law. That's supposed to be part of his assumed duties. Unless you spell it out word for word to these criminals they'll try to get around the law.

 

[Asclepias]

No. The question is what I asked you. Where does it specifically state in the oath that the AG cannot use discretion? You cannot show me that. On the other hand Holder has just specified that the AG's can use discretion. See how that works?

Here are the duties for the state of GA for example.

Duties | AGO



Where is your documentation to support your opinion willowtree?

The documentation is in the oath they swear when they take the position. They swear to uphold and to defend the laws. They do not swear to use discretion.

I see nothing in the oath that says he has to uphold the law. That's supposed to be part of his assumed duties. Unless you spell it out word for word to these criminals they'll try to get around the law.

That has long been a tactic of political criminals past and present. Certain people only get upset when it gets in the way of their discrimination of others.

 

[Silhouette]

I see nothing in the oath that says he has to uphold the law. That's supposed to be part of his assumed duties. Unless you spell it out word for word to these criminals they'll try to get around the law.

The United States Attorney General (AG) is the head of the United States Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 503) concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The attorney general is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government. The attorney general serves as a member of the president's cabinet, and is the only cabinet department head who is not given the title secretary.

The attorney general is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time; the attorney general is also subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The office of Attorney General was established by Congress by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."[1] Only in 1870 was the Department of Justice established to support the attorney general in the discharge of his responsibilities.

The current attorney general, Eric Holder,[2] was confirmed to office by the Senate on February 2, 2009, and sworn into office on February 3, 2009.[3] Holder is the 82nd United States Attorney General and the first African-American to hold the position. United States Attorney General - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Attorney General Eric Holder took this Oath:

“I, Eric Holder, do solemnly swear 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.”

About that last bit in bold. Eric Holder's "duties" are to prosecute and enforce laws duly enacted by the People of the various states within the federal territory of the United States of America. Did he or his boss Obama take any money in gay election contributions in exchange for ramrodding gay marriage upon the various states?

On both state and federal territory, Mr. Holder has failed in those duties. Worse, he has overruled law as written by the US Supreme Court in DOMA/Windsor 2013. The Supreme Court determined that the validation of gay marriage, or not, lies within the unquestioned authority of the various states. California still has in its constitution that marriage is only legal there between a man and a woman. Holder refusing to enforce those laws and instructing others to commit the same type of treason is grounds for his impeachment. And I think the House O' Representin' could pull that one off with ease.

Holder's inability to understand that the cult of LGBT is a collection of behaviors instead of a race or a proper religion, is not his determination to overrule especially the US Supreme Court. The Court cited the 14th Amendment, which Holder will no doubt point to in the defense of his impeachment hearings, in "Loving v Virginia". The Court Found that even though Loving was brought up as a possible exception to state law, at the end of the Finding, the Court declared and avowed that gay marriage, as of that writing, was "only allowed" "in some states". That is a Constitutional Interpretation. That is a de facto declaration from the Court on the applicability of the 14th to the cult of LGBT. ie: "No-Go".

Holder will then be like a flagpole rag flapping in the wind as the questions are put to him for disobedience to the laws he swore to uphold as duly enacted by the People and Affirmed so very recently by the US Supreme Court. Will he profess ignorance of the interpretation of Windsor as to the "unquestioned authority" of the various states and the voters within them that duly enacted their laws to reflect their Will in democracy?

Or will he just declare like a tyrant from the throne: "I pick and choose what laws I will enforce"?

His refusal to defend the US Supreme Court's determination in Windsor as to state's rights, their de facto "No-Go" determination to the applicability of the 14th, and democratic law regarding gay marriage in their boundaries, is his breach of Office, his "high crime". He has violated his Oath of Office. A lawschool freshmen could easily impeach him. All that is lacking is the Will to get that done. Will the House of Representatives enforce the rule of law in our country or will they be seen as weak obedient servants of Obama and his lawless appointees?

 

[mudwhistle]

I see nothing in the oath that says he has to uphold the law. That's supposed to be part of his assumed duties. Unless you spell it out word for word to these criminals they'll try to get around the law.

The United States Attorney General (AG) is the head of the United States Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 503) concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The attorney general is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government. The attorney general serves as a member of the president's cabinet, and is the only cabinet department head who is not given the title secretary.

The attorney general is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president and can be removed by the president at any time; the attorney general is also subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The office of Attorney General was established by Congress by the Judiciary Act of 1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."[1] Only in 1870 was the Department of Justice established to support the attorney general in the discharge of his responsibilities.

The current attorney general, Eric Holder,[2] was confirmed to office by the Senate on February 2, 2009, and sworn into office on February 3, 2009.[3] Holder is the 82nd United States Attorney General and the first African-American to hold the position. United States Attorney General - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Attorney General Eric Holder took this Oath:

“I, Eric Holder, do solemnly swear 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.”

About that last bit in bold. Eric Holder's "duties" are to prosecute and enforce laws duly enacted by the People of the various states within the federal territory of the United States of America. Did he or his boss Obama take any money in gay election contributions in exchange for ramrodding gay marriage upon the various states?

On both state and federal territory, Mr. Holder has failed in those duties. Worse, he has overruled law as written by the US Supreme Court in DOMA/Windsor 2013. The Supreme Court determined that the validation of gay marriage, or not, lies within the unquestioned authority of the various states. California still has in its constitution that marriage is only legal there between a man and a woman. Holder refusing to enforce those laws and instructing others to commit the same type of treason is grounds for his impeachment. And I think the House O' Representin' could pull that one off with ease.

Holder's inability to understand that the cult of LGBT is a collection of behaviors instead of a race or a proper religion, is not his determination to overrule especially the US Supreme Court. The Court cited the 14th Amendment, which Holder will no doubt point to in the defense of his impeachment hearings, in "Loving v Virginia". The Court Found that even though Loving was brought up as a possible exception to state law, at the end of the Finding, the Court declared and avowed that gay marriage, as of that writing, was "only allowed" "in some states". That is a Constitutional Interpretation. That is a de facto declaration from the Court on the applicability of the 14th to the cult of LGBT. ie: "No-Go".

Holder will then be like a flagpole rag flapping in the wind as the questions are put to him for disobedience to the laws he swore to uphold as duly enacted by the People and Affirmed so very recently by the US Supreme Court. Will he profess ignorance of the interpretation of Windsor as to the "unquestioned authority" of the various states and the voters within them that duly enacted their laws to reflect their Will in democracy?

Or will he just declare like a tyrant from the throne: "I pick and choose what laws I will enforce"?

His refusal to defend the US Supreme Court's determination in Windsor as to state's rights, their de facto "No-Go" determination to the applicability of the 14th, and democratic law regarding gay marriage in their boundaries, is his breach of Office, his "high crime". He has violated his Oath of Office. A lawschool freshmen could easily impeach him. All that is lacking is the Will to get that done. Will the House of Representatives enforce the rule of law in our country or will they be seen as weak obedient servants of Obama and his lawless appointees?

A crook like Holder doesn't think his oath means uphold the law. There's enough wiggle room for him to use his own discretion.

 

[Sunshine]

No. The question is what I asked you. Where does it specifically state in the oath that the AG cannot use discretion? You cannot show me that. On the other hand Holder has just specified that the AG's can use discretion. See how that works?

Here are the duties for the state of GA for example.

Duties | AGO



Where is your documentation to support your opinion willowtree?

The documentation is in the oath they swear when they take the position. They swear to uphold and to defend the laws. They do not swear to use discretion.

I see nothing in the oath that says he has to uphold the law. That's supposed to be part of his assumed duties. Unless you spell it out word for word to these criminals they'll try to get around the law.

Two questions:

What is the opposite of upholding the law?

What is the opposite of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution?

BTW: Every federal employee has to take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

The documentation is in the oath they swear when they take the position. They swear to uphold and to defend the laws. They do not swear to use discretion.

I see nothing in the oath that says he has to uphold the law. That's supposed to be part of his assumed duties. Unless you spell it out word for word to these criminals they'll try to get around the law.

Two questions:



What is the opposite of upholding the law?



What is the opposite of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution?



BTW: Every federal employee has to take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Nobody is not upholding any law. He said that state AGs don't have do defend laws they don't believe to be constitutional.

Imagine CA banned guns via people's initiative, clearly unconstitutional, right? Do you believe the CA AG (and CA taxpayers) should have to defend that law when challenged?

 

[HenryBHough]

Imagine CA banned guns via people's initiative, clearly unconstitutional, right? Do you believe the CA AG (and CA taxpayers) should have to defend that law when challenged?

Only if they want to keep their job.

 

[mudwhistle]

I see nothing in the oath that says he has to uphold the law. That's supposed to be part of his assumed duties. Unless you spell it out word for word to these criminals they'll try to get around the law.

Two questions:



What is the opposite of upholding the law?



What is the opposite of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution?



BTW: Every federal employee has to take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Nobody is not upholding any law. He said that state AGs don't have do defend laws they don't believe to be constitutional.

Imagine CA banned guns via people's initiative, clearly unconstitutional, right? Do you believe the CA AG (and CA taxpayers) should have to defend that law when challenged?

I think I'm going to run on a platform that states I won't defend any laws that I don't like. I will instead prosecute laws that go back decades that are out dated, like laws that say you can't use a particular wood to build your guitars, because you refuse to turn your company into a union shop.

I'll sue anyone that pisses me off. How about suing states because I think that they shouldn't require positive-identification during elections, because I feel it's discriminatory, or purging the voting rolls of the deceased or folks that have moved out of the state or district. This is all fine and good to the left. How about I just all of the sudden decide that I won't enforce tax laws in the states I like, but enforce them in the states I don't like. If you give me your support I'll forgive your tax liabilities. How about if you say the right thing or are of some use to me during elections I can temporarily waive provisions in the ACA so it won't hurt Democrats in the next two elections.

It seems to me that people who feel they can derive some benefit from this activity have no problem, even if is corrupts the election process and abuses the rights of the people to a fair and accurate election, it's all good.....as long as it helps me or my political party.

 

[Katzndogz]

So if an AG finds same sex marriage unconstitutional he or she can just ignore all those rights laws, right? It is only fair.

 

[Asclepias]

So if an AG finds same sex marriage unconstitutional he or she can just ignore all those rights laws, right? It is only fair.

For the last time the term used was "discriminatory" which coincidentally is unconstitutional. You can make up as many scenarios as you wish but the law on the books has to be discriminatory to fall under the guidelines Holder suggested.