« "W was Right", Says Obama | Main | Mr. Jefferson »

Attorney General Holder is Subverting the Constitution

Attorney General Eric Holder is violating his oath and subverting the Constitution for political purposes:

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster. ...

In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department's Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.

Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the solicitor general's office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.
...

Through a spokesman, Holder portrayed the basis for his override of the OLC ruling as grounded in law, not politics.

"The attorney general weighed the advice of different people inside the department, as well as the opinions of legal scholars, and made his own determination that the D.C. voting rights bill is constitutional," Matthew Miller said. "As the leader of the department, it is his responsibility to make his best independent legal judgment, and he believes that although there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue, ultimately the bill would constitutionally grant D.C. residents a right to elect a voting representative in Congress."

Attorney General can argue that he thinks this is bill is constitutional until he's blue in the face, but his won't be the final decision. His job is to uphold the law, not to interpret it the way he wants based upon his political proclivities. It's the judiciary's job to interpret the law and it will be the judiciary that has the final say on whether this bill is constitutional, not AG Holder.

Andy McCarthy weighs in and takes Holder to task for his attempts to maneuver around the Constitution:

The job of the Justice Department, in any event, is to uphold the Constitution and explain the existing legal terrain so that policy-makers may pursue their preferences within the bounds of the law. That is what OLC does -- and what it did here. Holder didn't like the answer because it didn't jibe with his partisan political preference. So in an unusual move, he asked for input from the solicitor general (who usually does not weigh in before there is a legal challenge to an enacted statute in court). The SG's office apparently told Holder it could plausibly defend the D.C. voting-rights legislation. That may be literally true (depending on your definition of "plausible") in the sense that lawyers are trained to argue both sides of any issue; but it doesn't mean the legislation should be defended -- the Justice Department is supposed to take the most legally sound position, not any position preferred by the president that may pass the laugh-test.

Andy also notes that there are other ways of allowing those who live in DC to have representation in the House: amending the Constitution, DC statehood, and retrocession by Maryland. McCarthy also asks if Holder is so keen on circumventing the Constitution in order to allow representation for DC, why not for Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico as well? That's a good question, and I would argue the answer is based in politics: it probably wouldn't benefit the Democratic party to do so.

Update: McCarthy expands further on Holder's history in the Justice Department:

Nevertheless, Miranda -- a truly preposterous legal decision -- is a sacred cow of the Left. If the Justice Department had abandoned it, major Democrat constituencies would have gone nuts. So Holder's Department refused to defend the statute and actually argued in the Supreme Court that a conviction and sentence won by its own federal prosecutors should be reversed. As is apt to happen when the Justice Department discredits its own case, the justices went along for the ride.

When enforcement of a patently defensible statute would undermine the progressive agenda [not mirandizing a suspect when he voluntarily confessed], the statute goes under the bus; when enforcement of a patently unconstitutional statute would further the progressive agenda, the presumption of validity lives and the statute need only pass the laugh-test (though I don't think the D.C. voting-rights bill meets even that low bar).

But other than that, Holder would never play politics with the law, nosiree.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35154.

Comments (10)

"...why not for Guam, Ameri... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...why not for Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico as well?"

They'll be next in line.

How can a tax cheat uphold ... (Below threshold)
914:

How can a tax cheat uphold the law?

And this suprises you umm H... (Below threshold)
retired military:

And this suprises you umm HOW?

In other news today, the sun came up.


BTW is it me or does the trollage seem to be getting less and less these days?

Are you freaking kidding us... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Are you freaking kidding us?!

I also think Holder should defer to the OLC.

But it's unreal that you would complain about the Justice Dept. "subverting the Constitution" by finding someone who will stand up in an open court and defend their position before a judge. Just how the hell is that unconstitutional?!

Meanwhile, the Bush Justice Dept. rendered their legal opinions in secret, acted on them in secret, fought tooth and nail to keep them out of court, then a month before leaving office reversed all opinions and concluded that their actions actually were not legal! And you were perfectly fine with that!

It's the judiciary's job to interpret the law and it will be the judiciary that has the final say on whether this bill is constitutional, not AG Holder.

Are we in bizarro world here? Replace "Holder" with "Gonzalez" and last year the right was taking exactly the opposite position. You were perfectly happy letting the AG determine the constitutionality of the executive's actions, and argued that the judiciary should stay the hell out of it. Now because Holder found someone to argue his position in court he's subverting the Constitution?

And by the way, your chest pumping that "it will be the judiciary that has the final say on whether this bill is constitutional, not AG Holder" is exactly what Holder is trying to do. If he decided not to defend it, then he would be having the final say. I suppose you wouldn't object to his final say then, would you?

Absolutely freaking unreal. Cognitive dissonance has become an epidemic on the right.

BTW is it me or does the... (Below threshold)
Brian:

BTW is it me or does the trollage seem to be getting less and less these days?

Speaking for myself, it's because the posts have not been very substantive lately. You pretty much have Shawn musing about life and thoughts about what if he actually posted something, Cassy's vendettas against Planned Parenthood and TV comedians, and teeth-gnashing over teleprompters, descents into socialism, and why no one cares about tea parties. With all that, there really hasn't been much opportunity for someone seeking rational arguments to offer a comment in response.

But it's still entertaining to watch, though.

Actually, I think the troll... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Actually, I think the trolls are just lying low when they can't find a Bush corollary to justify what The One has done. Obamabots never question Der Fuhrer.

Garandfan -I think... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Garandfan -

I think the trolls are starting to see that what they bought for the US and is now being installed isn't what they thought they were going to be getting.

Lack of corruption? Nope.

Cutting spending? You gotta be kidding.

Openness in government? Perhaps if you've got X-ray vision.

Rebuild our status in the world community? Yeah, you can do that with Wal-Mart gifts to heads of state.

Universal health care? To be determined - but the old trifecta of good, fast, and cheap is still going to apply. (If it's good and fast, it's not going to be cheap. If it's cheap and good, it's not going to be fast. If it's cheap and fast, it's not going to be good. Pick only two.)

As time goes on - they'll see more and more that the 'hope and change' they were expecting was just a Chicago pol lying to get elected... and then not having a damn clue what to do once he got in.

Hussein and his brownshirts... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

Hussein and his brownshirts have correctly decided that "unconstitutional" activity in the current dicatatorship is quite irrelevant. The only things that matter are: 1. will the MSM ignore the obvious law-breaking, and 2. will the 4 lefists and Kennedy enable the lawlessness to survive a Supreme Court challenge (assuming ANYONE can be found who has "standing"). It's great to be a dictator and own the media, huh?

Can't this guy read? Is he... (Below threshold)

Can't this guy read? Is he just willfully violating his oath? Amendment XXIII clearly states that they are not entitled to a senator or representative (only for the election of the president and vice president).

Does staff have an oath lik... (Below threshold)

Does staff have an oath like other appointees?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy