›

AG Firings

sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
edited March 2007 in Strut Central
Can one of the many[/b] left-leaning constitutional scholars here explain to me why the firing of an AG is not covered by the Appointments Clause in the Constitution and why this is news?

  Comments

  • jamesjames chicago 1,863 Posts
    YOU MUSTA ASKED THE WRONG PEOPLE
  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    Can one of the many[/b] left-leaning constitutional scholars here explain to me why the firing of an AG is not covered by the Appointments Clause in the Constitution and why this is news?
    because of the justifications for the firings?
  • SnagglepusSnagglepus 1,756 Posts
    Brown rice.


    Whoops ... wrong thread.
  • nzshadownzshadow 5,518 Posts
    Brown rice.


    Whoops ... wrong thread.

  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    ...new norms are more likely to develop when there is conflict over the meaning or status of an existing norm.29 Such conflict is evident in the recent uncertainty over whether sitting U.S. Attorneys should offer to resign to give newly elected presidents the chance to replace them. Before Bill Clinton's election, presidents expected that such resignations would be offered.30 After Clinton's inauguration, several sitting U.S. Attorneys balked at offering to resign their posts once the Senate confirmed Janet Reno as President Clinton's Attorney General.31 After becoming Attorney General, Reno had made what she thought was the routine request that sitting U.S. Attorneys submit their resignations to her, so she could consider whether to reappoint them. She did not expect negative backlash because similar requests had been made by her predecessors in the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations and honored by previous U.S. Attorneys.[/b] Their refusals to tender their resignations embarrassed Reno, and, in fact, the desire to cause Reno embarrassment may have been the impetus for the refusals.32 After sending mixed signals on whether all sitting U.S. Attorneys should proffer their resignations to Attorney General Ashcroft,33 President George W. Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft requested the resignations of all but a few of the nation's U.S. Attorneys.34 Not a single Republican leader questioned the propriety of Bush's and Ashcroft's actions.
  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    NORM THEORY AND THE FUTURE OF THE FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS PROCESS
    by MICHAEL J. GERHARDT (Arthur B. Hanson Professor of Law, William & Mary Law School, [Duke Law Journal, ]https://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/downloads/dlj50p1687.pdf] vol 50, page 1687.
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    Can one of the many[/b] left-leaning constitutional scholars here explain to me why the firing of an AG is not covered by the Appointments Clause in the Constitution and why this is news?

    I guess you would have to find one who thinks it is not covered.

    Could you tell me why firing AGs for political reasons or as a DOJ email put it ranking AGs as "Exhibited Loyalty" (high ranking) and "chafed against administration initiatives" (low ranking) is a good thing?

    How does this make America a better country?

    Do you really believe that AGs should be under the political pressure to indict members of the opposite party and allow members of their own party to walk? Don't forget that senators, representatives, people in the White House and in the DOJ have admitted applying this pressure.

    Can you explain why Kyle Sampson resigned for caring out what Alberto Gonzales has admitted approving?

    Could you ask many of your right-leaning constitutional scholars why they felt that Clinton should have been impeached for wanting to use his own travel agent?

    I am awaiting your answer with baited breath.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    Can one of the many[/b] left-leaning constitutional scholars here explain to me why the firing of an AG is not covered by the Appointments Clause in the Constitution and why this is news?

    I guess you would have to find one who thinks it is not covered.

    Could you tell me why firing AGs for political reasons or as a DOJ email put it ranking AGs as "Exhibited Loyalty" (high ranking) and "chafed against administration initiatives" (low ranking) is a good thing?

    How does this make America a better country?


    Do you really believe that AGs should be under the political pressure to indict members of the opposite party and allow members of their own party to walk? Don't forget that senators, representatives, people in the White House and in the DOJ have admitted applying this pressure.

    The AG is an executive branch officer, his job is to carry out the policy of the chief executive. I would think that that's pretty clear cut. Its not like a Myers or Humphrey's issue, the AG is an executive appointment subject to removal.

    I also read that the analysis used to come up with the disproportionate prosecution of democrat/republican was seriously flawed, the methods not revealed and the data used incomplete.




    Can you explain why Kyle Sampson resigned for caring out what Alberto Gonzales has admitted approving?

    Could you ask many of your right-leaning constitutional scholars why they felt that Clinton should have been impeached for wanting to use his own travel agent?

    I am awaiting your answer with baited breath.

    Not going there.
  • LaserWolfLaserWolf Portland Oregon 11,517 Posts
    Can you explain why Kyle Sampson resigned for caring out what Alberto Gonzales has admitted approving?

    Could you ask many of your right-leaning constitutional scholars why they felt that Clinton should have been impeached for wanting to use his own travel agent?

    I am awaiting your answer with baited breath.

    Not going there.
    No, I didn't think so.

    Thank you for letting me know that you think the DOJ as part of the executive branch should function as a political tool.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    3-2.120 Appointment

    United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President.[/b] See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).
  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    why did he remove them? in your opinion
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    i dont know, maybe they werent prosecuting the crimes he wanted them to. It happens, AGs can easily circumvent the laws by choosing not to enforce them, but I doubt that its because they werent prosecuting democrats hard enough. One cant argue that the prosecution or indictment ratio is 70% 30% D/R (SCANDAL)and then out of the other side of ones mouth argue that they were fired for not prosecuting dems hard enough (SCANDAL).
  • tonyphronetonyphrone 1,500 Posts
  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    3-2.120 Appointment

    United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate for a four-year term. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. Upon expiration of this term, the United States Attorney continues to perform the duties of the office until a successor is confirmed. United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President.[/b] See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 314 (1897).

    bush actually changed this under the patriot act (whether it is explicitly in the patriot act, i'm not sure) so that his appointments would carry over for his entire presidency.

    as to what the issue is over the firings, the issue isn't about whether he had the legal right to fire those us attorneys, but what prompted the firings. had gonzales actually followed myers' advice and fired EVERY us attorney, ironically, there woudl be less of a controversy. if you are familiar with how these firings came about and still don't understand why this is an issue...well, you are definitely in the minority. gonzales is almost begging to be let go.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts


    bush actually changed this under the patriot act (whether it is explicitly in the patriot act, i'm not sure) so that his appointments would carry over for his entire presidency.

    how does that make sense, his appointments would continue for his entire presidencey so long as he didnt remove them?
  • deejdeej 5,125 Posts
    you're both morons, the patriot act says that bush can hire new attorney generals without congressional approval
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    you're both morons,


  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    haha, yep. i read something about in the paper this morning and must not have remembered it too well.

    "lawmakers are revisiting a last-minute provision added to last year's reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act at the request of the Justice Department. It gives the president authority to replace a US attorney without going back to the Senate for confirmation"
Sign In or Register to comment.