Posted on 02/25/2014 8:56:43 PM PST by chessplayer
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
'I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.'
Merely disagreeing with a law is poor way to state his case. If a law is unconstitutional is he obligated to defend it? That then brings us to who makes the appropriate decision as to which laws might be unconstitutional (it is not the AG!).
This current regime just does not care what the law says, if it hurts their cause.
SCOTUS has no authority. The Feds neither.
I think the snow plow guys have to go to 0 deg offset when hitting same.
Safe and reasonable is the Natural Law, as governed by the Laws of Physics.
From the mouth piece of the dictator Obama. Remember, does this include all the laws they disagree with? I bet it doesn’t only the ones that the dictator wants.
You're not saying that speeding as a form of a cheap thrill should be against the law, are you?
What if I disagree with the Safe and Reasonable standard?
As a matter of fact, I disagree with just about every law passed since 1812.
Well then, if they don’t have to enforce laws they don’t agree with, I guess we don’t have to obey laws we don’t agree with. Any and every law, every law there Eric, is now open for debate and situational interpretation. Every law. Think about that long and hard Eric.
Natural selection rules. Hold my beer.
Over half the state AGs don’t agree with Obamacare, so hey, that’s a heckuva deal, thank Eric!
No controlling legal authority.
Don’t forget standing orders on race.
“Well that opens the voter id laws right back up, doesn’t it?” And machine guns.
I think that’s the plan.
I don’t have to obey laws I disagree with.
bump!
and the state AG’s don’t work for him
Law enforcement,,,, choosing which laws it will enforce, is pure police state. Its the very definition of law enforcement taking over the legislative function.
Guess what, Mr. Eric the Black, I’m not going to obey laws I don’t agree with.
If they don’t have to uphold laws with which they disagree, then why should a baker be required to bake a cake for homosexuals which would violate his religious beliefs?
So they don’t have to prosecute people who murder abortion doctors?
Scares the crap out of me as well.
To hear this arrogant know nothing racist islam lovin freak say something like this, makes me believe we truly are going to end up with some terrible blood shed.
All because some little king wannabe decided America was ripe for tyranny.
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.