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

[Silhouette]

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?

Actually, yes they do have to defend laws they don't believe are constitutional you ninny. And here's why: because they don't make the laws! Actively refusing to enforce a law means you have just legislated it out of existence and outside of the realm of your authority. Encouraging other AGs to do the same is a direct rebellion and instigation thereof of our Constitution and our Self-Government of representatives of the People. And especially if the US Supreme Court has just tested the 14th as to gay marriage and found it lacking, like they just did in Windsor, that is their Declaration to the world that the 14th does not apply to "gay marriage". Instead, they found that gay marriage was to be decided by the large consensus from the "unquestioned authority" of each of the several states, "as the Framers of the Constitution Intended" retroactive, [I might add] to the founding of the country.

The AG is not the interpretor of the US Constitution. That job belongs SOLELY to the US Supreme Court. Since they JUST examined the angle of the 14th, and found it lacking saying upon their Decision "gay marriage as of this date is only allowed in some states", Holder does not have the privelege, the right or the duty to reinvent the Constitutional interpretation to suit his or any other person's whim.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has the right to interpret the Constitution. NOT AG Eric Holder or any other AG for that matter... And what's worse is that they are lawyers and they of all people know this is a fact. Which means what we have on our hands here instead of "well meaning" AGs is active sedition and tyranny. Some folks call it "treason".

Gays are NOT a race of people, they are NOT a federally recognized religion and they are NOT a specific gender. This is why the 14th DOES NOT apply to them. Instead, they walk, talk and act like a cult that is recruiting new membership judging by all the kiddie-outreach TV programs and laws in some states requiring the veneration of their messiah and cult principles...even to the point of death...

New infections among young gay and bisexual men ages 13-24 rose 22 percent from 2008 to 2010...

..The trends for young gay and bisexual men are even more troubling. New infections among gay and bisexual men between the ages of 13 and 24 were up 22 percent in 2010. http://www.dallasvoice.com/cdc-stat...ections-amongs-gay-bisexual-men-10134915.html

"Born that way"? Or a new fad taking hold...

Joining along in this mass-delusion doesn't make you "cool", "trendy", "compassionate", "mature" or any of these other mirages. What is does is paint you out as uninformed and vulnerable to a mesmerizing chant, a real life version of the Emperor's New Clothes. And in Holder's case specifically, it makes you instead a traitor, a usurper, a henchman for the cult..

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Yet he feels he has the right to decide what is discriminatory.

 

[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.

Yet he feels he has the right to decide what is discriminatory.

No he left that up to the state AG's in his instructions. Its right there in the OP.

 

[Seawytch]

No one has said not to enforce the laws. You're lying. Defend is not enforce.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Yet he feels he has the right to decide what is discriminatory.

No he left that up to the state AG's in his instructions. Its right there in the OP.

Left it up the the state AG's "in his instructions"?

If he really had left it up to them he wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

I've got news for you dude, these people will apply pressure on anyone. That's what all of that spying is about. They've got the goods on everyone.

Fact is criminals shouldn't have this kind of power. They have access to massive amounts of personal information. That is a huge amount of power for anyone. And criminals? They tend to abuse it.

 

[Asclepias]

Yet he feels he has the right to decide what is discriminatory.

No he left that up to the state AG's in his instructions. Its right there in the OP.

Left it up the the state AG's "in his instructions"?

If he really had left it up to them he wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

I've got news for you dude, these people will apply pressure on anyone. That's what all of that spying is about. They've got the goods on everyone.

Fact is criminals shouldn't have this kind of power. They have access to massive amounts of personal information. That is a huge amount of power for anyone. And criminals? They tend to abuse it.

Yes did you read the OP? He basically stated the state AGs could exercise discretion. Its a part of leadership. Floating an idea in the hopes that people follow the vision and conduct themselves accordingly. Technically no one is a criminal unless convicted. Their actions may be criminal but they have to be convicted. Power has corrupted men before now and will after. There is nothing particularly special about whats happening now.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

HAHAHA. So discrimination is always unconstitutional? Why do we have affirmative action then?

 

[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.

HAHAHA. So discrimination is always unconstitutional? Why do we have affirmative action then?

Because white men discriminated for 400 years against women and people of color.

 

[mudwhistle]

No he left that up to the state AG's in his instructions. Its right there in the OP.

Left it up the the state AG's "in his instructions"?

If he really had left it up to them he wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

I've got news for you dude, these people will apply pressure on anyone. That's what all of that spying is about. They've got the goods on everyone.

Fact is criminals shouldn't have this kind of power. They have access to massive amounts of personal information. That is a huge amount of power for anyone. And criminals? They tend to abuse it.

Yes did you read the OP? He basically stated the state AGs could exercise discretion. Its a part of leadership. Floating an idea in the hopes that people follow the vision and conduct themselves accordingly. Technically no one is a criminal unless convicted. Their actions may be criminal but they have to be convicted. Power has corrupted men before now and will after. There is nothing particularly special about whats happening now.

Nothing special.

It happens all of the time in other countries.

This is the first time we've witness such a lawless administration in America, at least in my memory.

 

[Asclepias]

Left it up the the state AG's "in his instructions"?

If he really had left it up to them he wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

I've got news for you dude, these people will apply pressure on anyone. That's what all of that spying is about. They've got the goods on everyone.

Fact is criminals shouldn't have this kind of power. They have access to massive amounts of personal information. That is a huge amount of power for anyone. And criminals? They tend to abuse it.

Yes did you read the OP? He basically stated the state AGs could exercise discretion. Its a part of leadership. Floating an idea in the hopes that people follow the vision and conduct themselves accordingly. Technically no one is a criminal unless convicted. Their actions may be criminal but they have to be convicted. Power has corrupted men before now and will after. There is nothing particularly special about whats happening now.

Nothing special.

It happens all of the time in other countries.

This is the first time we've witness such a lawless administration in America, at least in my memory.

It may the first time you witnessed it but you should have been around at the founding of the country.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

You answered your own question.

Think about it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes did you read the OP? He basically stated the state AGs could exercise discretion. Its a part of leadership. Floating an idea in the hopes that people follow the vision and conduct themselves accordingly. Technically no one is a criminal unless convicted. Their actions may be criminal but they have to be convicted. Power has corrupted men before now and will after. There is nothing particularly special about whats happening now.

Nothing special.

It happens all of the time in other countries.

This is the first time we've witness such a lawless administration in America, at least in my memory.

It may the first time you witnessed it but you should have been around at the founding of the country.

We've had several amendments since then.

We have a serious problem with these Democrats. They're running this country into the dirt and doing it on purpose. If the shoe were on the other foot they'd be screaming bloody-murder.

 

[Asclepias]

Nothing special.

It happens all of the time in other countries.

This is the first time we've witness such a lawless administration in America, at least in my memory.

It may the first time you witnessed it but you should have been around at the founding of the country.

We've had several amendments since then.

We have a serious problem with these Democrats. They're running this country into the dirt and doing it on purpose. If the shoe were on the other foot they'd be screaming bloody-murder.

Yeah but it decades and some even took centuries. Guess what the most relevant ones were about? Discrimination. Dems are guilty of a lot of things but I see nothing wrong with this one. Seems to me both parties are equally as adept at running the country into the ground.

 

[Faun]

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?

Of course they would have to uphold such a law. Upholding laws is what they do. Deciding which laws are unconstitutional is what the courts do.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Defending the constitution is now a crime. Next week, people will be clamoring again for secession ... oy. Here's a thought; what do you people hold in higher esteem? The Constitution, or state law that violates the constitution?

Take your time and think this one through. If you chose the latter, please pour yourself a big heaping helping of STFU and never squawk about people trampling our Constitution again.

It's really simple - you are either for America or you are against her.

You don't get it both ways - pick your allegiance.

 

[Silhouette]

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?

Of course they would have to uphold such a law. Upholding laws is what they do. Deciding which laws are unconstitutional is what the courts do.

Exactly. Seawytch apparently doesn't get that when an AG refuses to defend a duly-enacted law, Eric Holder is legislating. The action of refusing to defend a law by a person sworn to uphold ALL laws: the ones he personally agrees with and the ones he personally doesn't, is him declaring to The House of Representatives: "Fire me". He no longer is qualified to serve as the AG.

 

[Moonglow]

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

Why not!!?? That's what I do...
and the ones I disagree with....

 

[Faun]

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

Why not!!?? That's what I do...
and the ones I disagree with....

Did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution as part of your job?

 

[Moonglow]

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

Why not!!?? That's what I do...
and the ones I disagree with....

Did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution as part of your job?

No...I am self employed...

 

[Faun]

Why not!!?? That's what I do...
and the ones I disagree with....

Did you take an oath to uphold the Constitution as part of your job?

No...I am self employed...

Then your duties to uphold the Constitution are not the same as Holder's or any attorney's general.