Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yoe

Like a stopped clock being right twice a day, Holder is correct here. This is a separation of powers issue. A cop has the discretion to not arrest, notwithstanding an obvious violation of law. A DA has the discretion to not charge, a jury has the discretion to not convict (jury nullification) and a judge has the discretion to suspend the sentence. Only the jailer has to follow instructions to jail an inmate, because that’s not a fourth branch of government with independent powers.

If all of the above entities lacked discretion as described above, then the legislature would have all the power, and everyone else would *have* to do as they decreed. In which case no “separation of powers” argument could be made - all the power would rest with the legislature.

So Holder is correct here, there is no obligation to enforce laws. What Holder will never say, though, is that this also applies to gun laws, or any other laws. As it happens, Sheriffs in several Colorado counties are stating that their officers will not enforce some of Colorado’s recent gun prohibitions, i.e. taking some power away from the ‘rat legislature.


9 posted on 03/11/2014 9:24:57 AM PDT by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: coloradan
So Holder is correct here, there is no obligation to enforce laws. What Holder will never say, though, is that this also applies to gun laws, or any other laws. As it happens, Sheriffs in several Colorado counties are stating that their officers will not enforce some of Colorado’s recent gun prohibitions, i.e. taking some power away from the ‘rat legislature.

I understand your point here. It has some validity on a "case by case" basis regarding how applicable a law might be in a certain circumstance (letter Vs intent). HOWEVER, I disagree that there is discretion on what laws to enforce or ignore in their entirety. These officials that represent elected positions in government at all levels swear an oath to uphold and enforce the law. They cannot, by personal belief, refuse to enforce laws in general.

In CO I would say the same, that on a case by case basis, an AG can determine whether a law was broken or is applicable. But the idea of ignoring or encouraging a disregard for the law violates an oath of office. Without the recognition of the "Rule of Law" we have no government at all. The only power our government has is the citizenry faith in it, much like our currency. If government cannot be trusted, they will not be obeyed. This is well documented throughout history. A government crumbles when "its subjects" (which is what we have become) do not recognize it's authority.

20 posted on 03/11/2014 9:41:42 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: coloradan

Thank you for removing the fog a bit.....


37 posted on 03/11/2014 1:52:29 PM PDT by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson