OK not to get into the semantics of which laws are right and which laws are wrong there is this little tidbit.
Attorney General Eric Holder has given the nod to his state counterparts that they do not have to defend laws they consider discriminatory
are they not the LAW. how can he pick and choose indiscriminately which laws are OK to enforce and which are not. they are the law. and he took an oath to enforce those laws.
Not to mention that "what they consider discriminatory" leave the door WIDE open for interpretation
Do I have the ability to choose which laws I get to Obey because I deem the Discriminatory against me?
Discuss
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
To play Devil's advocate, on its face, this isn't really a shift in practice. So if the discriminatory practice is truly unconstitutional then he is correct. No prosecutor should pursue a case if it is built on unconstitutional foundation.
Except maybe in cases where there needs / he hopes to win, some clarification by an upper court. Or the accused is 'getting away' with something on a technicality so he 'forces the issue' hoping the storm forces congress to change the law in the end.
Holder likewise is forcing his own issue basically saying lower courts need to get more intune with his interpretation of what is constitutional. And unfortunately his interpretation is a launching pad from where he has departed from reality a number of times.
So, although this sucks because we know where it leads, he hasn't stepped out of bounds by simply saying it.
He often steps out of bounds himself and so it seems he's trying to coerce his underlings to join him there more often. He is a bad employee. We need to fire him but that isn't happening.
Do I have the ability to choose which laws I get to Obey because I deem the Discriminatory against me?
That was my first thought. Someone can say everything that is against them is discriminatory.
So if the discriminatory practice is truly unconstitutional then he is correct. No prosecutor should pursue a case if it is built on unconstitutional foundation.
This has to be proven in a court of law before someone can not apply the law correct?
Corsair Vengeance 64GB 2x32 6000 DDR5, Asus PRIME B760-PLUS S1700 ATX, Corsair RM1000x 1000 Watt PS 80 Plus Gold,WD Black SN770 2TB NVMe M.2 SSD, WD Blue SN580 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD, Noctua NH-D15S Universal CPU Cooler, Intel Core i7-14700K 5.6GHz, Corsair 5000D AIRFLOW Tempered Glass Mid-Tower ATX, Asus GF RTX 4070 Ti Super ProArt OC 16GB Video, WD Black 6TB 7200RPM 256MB 3.5" SATA3, Windows 11
Will Robinson wrote: No prosecutor should pursue a case if it is built on unconstitutional foundation.
But it's not for the prosecutor to decide the constitutionality of the said Law. that's the courts place. it is his JOB to enforce said laws. it he believes it's unconstitutional challenge it in court.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I see that as a step in the right direction. The courts, officers of the courts and sheriffs are all constitutional officers and that is a huge step towards bringing authority back to the states and spreading it around at the same time.
CUDA wrote:OK not to get into the semantics of which laws are right and which laws are wrong there is this little tidbit.
Attorney General Eric Holder has given the nod to his state counterparts that they do not have to defend laws they consider discriminatory
are they not the LAW. how can he pick and choose indiscriminately which laws are OK to enforce and which are not. they are the law. and he took an oath to enforce those laws.
Not to mention that "what they consider discriminatory" leave the door WIDE open for interpretation
Do I have the ability to choose which laws I get to Obey because I deem the Discriminatory against me?
Discuss
precedent history will show, CUDA, that, on MANY instances, the Federal Attorneys have been instructed NOT to defend legal challenges to laws. This is, it is worth noting, not the same as not ENFORCING those laws. The Federal government is not obligated to provide legal defense to laws if it deems those laws to be constitutionally indefensable, and that is all you are seeing here. Is the distinction clear?
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Will Robinson wrote: No prosecutor should pursue a case if it is built on unconstitutional foundation.
But it's not for the prosecutor to decide the constitutionality of the said Law. that's the courts place. it is his JOB to enforce said laws. it he believes it's unconstitutional challenge it in court.
no,no,no!!! If he/she deems it unconstitutional, it will not be DEFENDED in a lawsuit. Which is exactly what Holder is doing here.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
easy catch, when it's in the original post's wording. Sort of akin to a soft pop fly, actually. Why folks insist on jumping on the administration with both feet while demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of how our government works is beyond me.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
