its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life.
If we can undermine these three areas,
America will collapse from within.
- Joseph Stalin
Posted on 02/25/2014 1:22:37 PM PST by bestintxas
Attorney General Eric Holder has given the nod to his state counterparts that they do not have to defend laws against constitutional court challenges if they consider them discriminatory -- effectively giving the green light for states to stop defending bans on gay marriage.
Holder addressed the issue during a gathering of state attorneys general on Tuesday, after detailing his position in a New York Times interview.
ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking to the National Association of Attorneys General, Holder said that any decision not to defend individual laws in court must be "exceedingly rare" and reserved for "exceptional circumstances." He indicated that legal challenges to gay marriage bans would qualify as such a circumstance.
"In general, I believe that we must be suspicious of legal classifications based solely on sexual orientation," he said.
His remarks, while already generating backlash from conservatives, could fuel a wave of legal challenges at the state level. In the wake of the federal Defense of Marriage Act being struck down by the Supreme Court last year, several Democratic state attorneys general have taken the unusual step of abandoning their defense of state gay marriage bans.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
But the House is silent on his mockery of the contempt citing he received.
Go ahead and impeach this b__________!
Laws apply only when they want them to, we are less than serfs. Pray.
State AG’s don’t work for Holder, voters might want to remind them of that
Holder to AGs — “Ignore your professional ethical responsibility to your client.”
Lawless and Unaccountable: Holder gives nod to NY State AG to drop defense of SAFE ACT
This came up (is the AG required to defend) several times when I was a Prosecutor. the law is settled that he does not. Further, any branch can decide if something is constitutional. While I absolutely 100% think they should vigorously defend this, through the History of the U.S. it has been just as clear they don’t have to.
Then it falls to The People to enforce those bans. Which will be much, much worse for the fags than if the gummint had done its job.
I do not take Holder's statement as a prosecutor's discretion issue because he stated 'they do not have to defend laws against constitutional court challenges'. It appears to be his opinion that the law is unconstitutional and does not need to be defended. So the question for non lawyers is how do we have faith in the law?
So by definition then a state AG can refuse to enforce any law he or she doesn’t like, right? So let’s say Massachusetts elects a conservative AG (not likely, I know, but ya never know), that person can refuse to enforce queer “marriage” laws, gun laws, etc. etc. - right?
Wow - this makes elections into winner-take-all high stakes death matches, and since the big money is with the leftists, they will take over eventually. This is not only lawlessness, this is revolution. This guy needs to be stopped now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.