Posted on 06/04/2002 10:08:51 AM PDT by pabianice
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
As determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, not the Attorney General.
And the U.S Criminal Code, from which the Attorney General is not exempt, and indeed has a particular duty to set the example for others to follow, lest the concept that our laws are intended for all be seen as a sham and a joke- a viewpoint gaining wider and wider credence:
United States Code, U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18, Section 242;
Deprivation of rights under color of law :
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
-archy-/-
Tell it to Attorneys General John Mitchell and Janet Reno.
-archy-/-
How vigorously?
Nope. I'm saying that if he enforces unconstitutional law that deprive American citizens of a constitutional right, to include Second Amendment rights, he could well end up in prison, as A.G. John Mitchell did, or could even potentially find himself receiving a lethal injection, if citizens are killed in the process, as they were at Waco and elsewhere.
The A.G. gets to determine who may be prosecuted under federal law- but his actions are also subject to review by future attorneys general, as well as other applicable courts. And if his conduct is found to be criminal, he should get what any other felon does.
Indeed, there's a case from his old area that may very well bear on the possibility that previous felonies in which he was involved may have given his opposition a measure of control over him. We shall see.
-archy-/-
The AG can disregard a law upon orders of the president, but that order itself would probably be unlawful, and could subject the president to impeachment proceedings.
Happily for your digestion, my already tarnished reputation, and the canons of ethics of the practice of law, I am neither an attorney-at-law, nor a barrister. I have covered legal and legislative matters as a newspaperman and syndicated columnist since 1970 however, and have helpfully assisted with the natural selection of the breed in a couple of cases in which practicioners of the trade, some quite prominent, were subsequently either disbarred, censured, or otherwise disgraced, and in which a couple of judges chose to step down from the bench rather than face similar exposure.
The AG can disregard a law upon orders of the president, but that order itself would probably be unlawful, and could subject the president to impeachment proceedings.
I concur. Presumably a knowledgable A.G. who could see what was coming would first resign; but if he or she did not, the offense for which the President would face impeachment-and possible other criminal action, since impeachment carries only removal from office as its final punishment- could also leave that Attorney General to suffer criminal charges for criminal conspiracy with his Presidential accomplice. I believe something of the sort was mentioned as a possibility for FDR's attorney general Harry H. Woodring , had the impeachment charges against Roosevelt for Neutrality Act violations ever proceeded, but they did not and so no blood was drawn-see the writings of AP chief Kent Cooper, sometimes writing as *D.C.Speaker* from that period.
And read 18 USC 242 again:
or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens....
-archy-/-
The Brady law has no sunset provision. It is there forever, or until it is either repealed be congress or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The gun and magazine capacity restrictions from the 1994 crime bill will expire in September 2004. Want to bet that the republicans won't decide to support renewing those restrictions, especially as it will be right before the 2004 elections?
If Ashcroft follows the letter of the law, background check records for purchases which were allowed to continue should be eliminated.
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.