that seems to be the PLAN, yes!
Posted on 03/11/2014 9:17:08 AM PDT by yoe
Attorney General Eric Holder is taking the lawless attitude of the Obama administration and passing it down to state attorneys general. Yesterday during an interview with The New York Times, Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, specifically when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.
It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.
“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Mr. Holder said.
In 2011, the Obama administration announced attorneys in the Department of Justice would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was later struck down in 2013 by the Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Great! About 2/3 of the states will be done with Obamacare, then...
This is just a few steps away from nobody obeying a law they disagree with.
But by God don’t you dare disobey Eric Holder’s dictates!!!
To that end, any law, executive order, executive agency rule, guideline or restriction his vile corrupt administration issues forth like spew from a putrid serpent, can be ignored. From the mouth of the serpent’s enforcer himself.
Obamacare being one of those, I suppose?
Dear Holder, CW-II is closer in the mirror than it appears.
I’ll enjoy watching what happens to you if it occurs.
If the federal government and states don’t have to enforce the laws they pass, then why do the people have to obey them?
We don’t have to OBEY laws that are contrary to the Constitution.
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.
Yep, pick and choose which ones you want. Everybody do their own thing. A recipe for chaos.
Why pass any laws at all if enforcement is optional?
I am increasingly angered, bewildered and frustrated that there are seemingly a lack of checks and balances. Why is Holder still in office? Why isnt’ he prosecuted? Where are the spines of the Republicans? This is beyond absurd!
It looks like the precedent is being set now. Just a few tiny steps left.
A few steps away? That is exactly what this is! A man in elected office takes an oath to enforce the law. Holder is breaking that oath and encouraging others to break the law and do the same. The Republicans should be moving to impeach the clown right now. Why aren’t they, because he’s black?
This isn’t far from enforcing a law that doesn’t even exist.
Then we don’t have to obey laws we don’t agree with
somebody blast this to all CT LEO’s. they don’t have to enforce the new gun control laws if they don’t want to.
The US Attorney General is now advocating discretionary disobedience to civil servants that work FOR the citizens. Since the constitution puts the individual rights above legislated law, it follows that citizens are now above the law as well.
I look forward to the first case that goes before the SCOTUS that presents a defense based on judicial enforcement on the whim of LEO (at any level). If judicial precedence still has any standing, the defense should be plausible and undeniable. Simply cite the founding documents that hold these truths to be self evident and make the case that justice is no longer blind but does indeed discriminate. This nullifies the validity of the “Rule of Law” and thereby the legislative body’s authority and, in fact, all governing entities that swear an oath to defend and enforce any such legislation.
Any case, should then be dismissed. I’d start with tax collection enforcement.
(fantasy optimism)
Too bad he didn't say this during his confirmation hearing.
Or maybe he did and they voted to confirm him anyway.
Not like he and his beliefs were a mystery then, nor is this a surprise now.
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.
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.