Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

[Theowl32]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders | WashingtonExaminer.com

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tvs_BssD5eU]Senator Lee Questions Eric Holder on Executive Orders - YouTube[/ame]

Attorney General Eric Holder couldn't explain the constitutional basis for executive orders such as President Obama's delay of the employer mandate because he hasn't read the legal analysis -- or at least, hasn't seen it in a long time.

"I'll be honest with you, I have not seen -- I don't remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time, so I'm not sure where along the spectrum that would come," Holder replied when Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked him to explain the nature of Obama's constitutional power to delay the mandate.

Lee had based his question on a standard legal test, first described by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who said the president's authority to issue executive orders is strongest when he does so with the backing of Congress (category one), more dubious when he issues an order pertaining to a topic on which Congress has not passed a law (category two), and weakest when the executive order is "incompatible with a congressional command" (category three), to use Lee's paraphrase.

Holder assured Lee that Obama's team accounts for Jackson's three-part analysis, but said he couldn't use that test to explain in any detail what kind of authority the president wielded when he delayed the employer mandate.

"I've not had a chance to look at, you know, for some time, exactly what the analysis was there, so I'm not sure that I would be able to put it in what category," Holder told Lee. He believes that Obama "is probably at the height of his constitutional power" in issuing an executive order to raise the minimum wage for workers who do business with the federal government, though, and concluded that the same is true for the employer mandate delay.

"I would think that given that we're talking about a statute passed by Congress that delegates or devolves to the executive branch certain authorities, I would think that you're probably in category one there as well," Holder said of the delayed employer mandate, which the text of Obamacare says should have taken effect Jan. 1, 2014. "But, again, I have not looked at the analysis in some time."

When Holder suggested that Obama had made less use of unilateral executive authority than past presidents, Lee disagreed.

"When you look at the quality, not just the quantity but the quality, the nature of the executive orders that he has issued, he has usurped an extraordinary amount of authority within the executive branch," Lee countered. "This is not precedented, and I point to the delay — the unilateral delay, lawless delay, in my opinion — of the employer mandate as an example of this. And so, at a minimum, I think he owes us an explanation as to what his legal analysis was."

A little while before Lee questioned Holder, Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., introduced a bill that would require the executive branch to explain to Congress the reasoning behind every decision not to enforce a law.

“President Obama has not only failed to uphold several of our nation’s laws, he has vowed to continue to do so in order to enact his unpopular agenda,” DeSantis said in a the press release. “The president assured the public that his administration would be the most transparent in history, and while the president has fallen woefully short on this promise, my bill will be a step in the right direction. The American people deserve to know exactly which laws the Obama administration is refusing to enforce and why.”

The bill is called the Faithful Execution of the Law Act, an allusion to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which obligates the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

 

[waltky]

Granny says Obama gonna reduce prison population so' dey can go back out an' sell more illegal drugs...

Obama Will Take 'Executive Action' to Reduce Prison Population
January 31, 2014 -- Congress can pass legislation giving judges more discretion in the sentencing of prisoners, but President Obama "also has the ability to take executive action" to commute the sentences of "low-level" drug offenders -- and that's just what he plans to do, Deputy Attorney General James Cole told the New York State Bar Association annual meeting on Thursday.

"A little over a month ago, the President commuted the sentences of eight men and women who were sentenced under severe -- and out of date -- mandatory minimum sentencing laws," Cole said. "But the President’s grant of commutations for these eight individuals is only a first step. There is more to be done, because there are others like the eight who were granted clemency. There are more low-level, non-violent drug offenders who remain in prison, and who would likely have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of precisely the same offenses today. This is not fair, and it harms our criminal justice system.

"To help correct this, we need to identify these individuals and get well-prepared petitions into the Department of Justice. It is the Department’s goal to find additional candidates, who are similarly situated to the eight granted clemency last year, and recommend them to the President for clemency consideration." Although commutation of sentence is an "extraordinary remedy that is rarely used," that's about to change. Cole said the Justice Department wants state bar associations to "assist potential candidates for executive clemency" by "assembling effective and appropriate commutation petitions."

He described qualified clemency candidates as non-violent, low-level drug offenders who were not involved in gang or cartel activity; first-time offenders; and those without an extensive criminal history. Qualified candidates should have a "clean record in prison," not pose a threat to public safety and face life or "near-life" sentences that are "excessive under current law." The goal is to give these prisoners "a fresh start," Cole said.

The expanded use of clemency is necessary to alleviate what Cole described as the "crushing" federal prison population," which has increased 800 percent over the past 30 years and currently totals nearly 216,000 inmates, more than half of whom are drug offenders. The federal prison system currently operates at 33 percent over capacity system-wide, Cole said. "Every dollar we spend at the Department of Justice on prisons -- and last year we spent about $6.5 billion on prisons -- is a dollar we cannot spend supporting our prosecutors and law enforcement agents in their fight against violent crime, drug cartels, public corruption, financial fraud, human trafficking, and child exploitation, just to mention a few. In other words, if we don’t find a solution to the federal prison population problem, public safety is going to suffer."

MORE

See also:

Obama Won't Take Executive Action to Remove Pot from Narcotics List
January 31, 2014 -– President Barack Obama in an exclusive interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, airing Friday said it is up to Congress to decide whether marijuana should continue to be classified as a Schedule I narcotic.

“What is and isn’t a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress,” Obama said when Tapper asked if he was “considering not making marijuana a Schedule I narcotic.” “I think it’s the DEA that decides that,” Tapper interjected. “It’s not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws undergirding those determinations,” the president responded. According to the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, Schedule I drugs are described as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S., and lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. “Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence,” the DEA’s website said.

The following are considered Schedule I drugs: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote. When asked if he would support reclassifying marijuana, Obama compared it to alcohol, saying that it is “subject to abuse” and should be treated as a “public health problem.” He referenced a Jan. 27 interview he gave to The New Yorker, saying, “But as I said in the interview, my concern is when you end up having very heavy criminal penalties for individual users that have been applied unevenly, and in some cases with a racial disparity, I think that is a problem.”

The president said in addition to dealing with the “racial disparity” in sentencing for marijuana possession, the focus should shift to making sure kids don’t get into the habit of smoking cigarettes or using drugs or alcohol. “Over the long-term, what I believe is if we can deal with some of the criminal penalty issues, then we can really tackle what is a problem, not just for marijuana, but also alcohol, also cigarettes, also harder drugs, and that is try to make sure that our kids don’t get, don’t get into these habits in the first place,” he said. “And the incarceration model that we’ve taken, particularly around marijuana does not seem to have produced the kinds of results that we’ve said,” Obama said.

The president also warned that if marijuana is legalized, “big corporations” could begin marketing pot to the public, which would result in higher levels of drug abuse. “But I do offer a cautionary note – and I said this in the interview – those who think legalization is a panacea, I think they have to ask themselves some tough questions too, because if we start having a situation where big corporations with a lot of resources and distribution of marketing arms are suddenly going out there peddling marijuana, then the levels of abuse that may take place are going to be higher,” he added.

Obama Won't Take Executive Action to Remove Pot from Narcotics List | CNS News

 

[RandallFlagg]

Holder can't explain….yet we hear constantly how "smart" he and Obama are. Which, of course, can only lead to one possible explanation: He refuses to answer.

To understand "Steadman" Holder, you have to understand Barry Obama. Holder is Obama's "Boy". Holder is there to insure that Barry can complete the destruction of the American way of life. He's there to serve as the Full-Back - to clear the way (and take the hit) for his boss.

Break the law!?!?! Don't you understand, I AM THE PRESIDENT!!!! THE LAWS DON'T APPLY TO ME!!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

 

[House]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

Cheap cop out is cheap.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General. Current events on the Hill are his business. The execution of executive orders are very much his responsibility.

How can he supervise the execution of executive orders if he doesn't know what the hell they mean?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

Cheap cop out is cheap.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General. Current events on the Hill are his business. The execution of executive orders are very much his responsibility.

How can he supervise the execution of executive orders if he doesn't know what the hell they mean?

Again, one need only remember the mantra of the left to understand "Steadman" Holder….deny, deny, deny, deny, deny,deny, deny and sooner or later, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC lose interest and look for a "racist" story to cover. And hell, if they can't find one, they manufacture one. After all - sweeps week is coming!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

It is Holder's job to provide legal council to the president and justify those decisions. And he failed. Much like all of your posts.

 

[Mr. H.]

This entire Administration has been making shit up on the fly for the last 5 years.

 

[Synthaholic]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

Cheap cop out is cheap.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General. Current events on the Hill are his business. The execution of executive orders are very much his responsibility.

How can he supervise the execution of executive orders if he doesn't know what the hell they mean?

The AG is not involved in legislation.

The AG does not supervise the execution of executive orders.

 

[Synthaholic]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

It is Holder's job to provide legal council to the president and justify those decisions. And he failed. Much like all of your posts.

False. That's the job of White House Council.

You're a moron.

 

[Synthaholic]

This entire Administration has been making shit up on the fly for the last 5 years.

You don't enjoy improv?

 

[House]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

It is Holder's job to provide legal council to the president and justify those decisions. And he failed. Much like all of your posts.

False. That's the job of White House Council.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
  [*]Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
• Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
• Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

Source: DOJ: JMD: Organization, Mission and Functions Manual: Attorney General

You're a moron.

 

[Synthaholic]

It is Holder's job to provide legal council to the president and justify those decisions. And he failed. Much like all of your posts.

False. That's the job of White House Council.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
  
• Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
• Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
• Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

Source: DOJ: JMD: Organization, Mission and Functions Manual: Attorney General

You're a moron.

I think you are wrong.

White House Council:

The White House Counsel is a staff appointee of the President of the United States whose role is to advise the President on all legal issues concerning the President and his Administration. The current White House Counsel is Kathryn "Kathy" Ruemmler.


The Office of Counsel to the President was created in 1943, and is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.




Executive orders are sometimes also called Presidential (signing) statements.

 

[Duped]

Holder can't explain….yet we hear constantly how "smart" he and Obama are. Which, of course, can only lead to one possible explanation: He refuses to answer.

To understand "Steadman" Holder, you have to understand Barry Obama. Holder is Obama's "Boy". Holder is there to insure that Barry can complete the destruction of the American way of life. He's there to serve as the Full-Back - to clear the way (and take the hit) for his boss.

Break the law!?!?! Don't you understand, I AM THE PRESIDENT!!!! THE LAWS DON'T APPLY TO ME!!!!

Holder, like Obama believe in the fairness doctrine - what they deem to be fair; compensation / redistribution for percieved wrongs of the past; trumps congress, the Constitution; everything! They do in fact they see themselves as above the law; beyond reproach Holder knows Obama operates outside the purview of law. He would have no trouble articulating it if he wasn't complicit!

 

[Bombur]

Political posturing is political. Perception is the only thing that matters. Reality is for suckers.

 

[House]

False. That's the job of White House Council.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
  
• Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
• Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
• Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

Source: DOJ: JMD: Organization, Mission and Functions Manual: Attorney General

You're a moron.

I think you are wrong.

Now we know where thinking gets you. My source is the DoJ, which you'd know if you actually clicked the link.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Department of Justice would know a bit more about appointed duties than LOLWIKI!

 

[Duped]

Political posturing is political. Perception is the only thing that matters. Reality is for suckers.

Everyone who voted for Obama is a sucker!

 

[bendog]

The problem with RW stories like this, that have no basis in history or law of the power of the executive, is that their hysteria prevents the focus being upon the folly of the law itself.

"In fact, applicable judicial precedent places such timing adjustments well within the Executive Branch's lawful discretion. To be sure, the federal Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to compel agencies to initiate statutorily required actions that have been "unreasonably delayed." But courts have found delays to be unreasonable only in rare cases where, unlike this one, inaction had lasted for several years, and the recalcitrant agency could offer neither a persuasive excuse nor a credible end to its dithering.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...atantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/


Instead of hysteria of "Obama flagerantly voids the constitution itself (and tramples on liberty or whatever the fck), the issue is how does one logically defend the justice of a law that forces young people to pay for the healthcare of older workers? Some in the gop, prior to the TPM, explored whether those who gain the most income from corp profits should morally, civially or economically be burdened with the cost, or at least part. But, Obamacare is premised upon a strategy that is not popular with the youth vote. That's the proper issue .... assuming the TPM/gop has an interest in winning elections for a change.

 

[rightwinger]

What would make anyone think that executive orders are not legal?

 

[bendog]

The TPM hysteria/propaganda is that Obama is "refusing" to enforce the law. But, since Renequist ushered in conservatism (which I'm not sure Roberts favors), judicial review defers to the executive department's decisions as to whether enforcement should be delayed because of policy issues, unless it becomes clear that the executive department intends to circumvent the law. Here, the individual mandate is obama's baby. POLTICALLY, his decision to delay his own law should illustrate the unsoundness of the law.

But instead the RW trots out o'rielly or whomever to be a screechmonkey trying to find some nefarious fiendish plot and coverup conspiracy.