Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

[Zander]

What would make anyone think that executive orders are not legal?

It depends on the order.

 

[The T]

What would make anyone think that executive orders are not legal?

It depends on the order.

And whether such orders undermine the Legislative. So far? Obama has a track record, and threats. He needs to go.

Not one of the critters in Congress will call him on his transgressions.

 

[The T]

Holder should have been FIRED long ago...and in jail.

 

[Old Rocks]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive orders | WashingtonExaminer.com

Senator Lee Questions Eric Holder on Executive Orders - YouTube

Attorney General Eric Holder couldn't explain the constitutional basis for executive orders such as President Obama's delay of the employer mandate because he hasn't read the legal analysis -- or at least, hasn't seen it in a long time.

"I'll be honest with you, I have not seen -- I don't remember looking at or having seen the analysis in some time, so I'm not sure where along the spectrum that would come," Holder replied when Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, asked him to explain the nature of Obama's constitutional power to delay the mandate.

Lee had based his question on a standard legal test, first described by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who said the president's authority to issue executive orders is strongest when he does so with the backing of Congress (category one), more dubious when he issues an order pertaining to a topic on which Congress has not passed a law (category two), and weakest when the executive order is "incompatible with a congressional command" (category three), to use Lee's paraphrase.

Holder assured Lee that Obama's team accounts for Jackson's three-part analysis, but said he couldn't use that test to explain in any detail what kind of authority the president wielded when he delayed the employer mandate.

"I've not had a chance to look at, you know, for some time, exactly what the analysis was there, so I'm not sure that I would be able to put it in what category," Holder told Lee. He believes that Obama "is probably at the height of his constitutional power" in issuing an executive order to raise the minimum wage for workers who do business with the federal government, though, and concluded that the same is true for the employer mandate delay.

"I would think that given that we're talking about a statute passed by Congress that delegates or devolves to the executive branch certain authorities, I would think that you're probably in category one there as well," Holder said of the delayed employer mandate, which the text of Obamacare says should have taken effect Jan. 1, 2014. "But, again, I have not looked at the analysis in some time."

When Holder suggested that Obama had made less use of unilateral executive authority than past presidents, Lee disagreed.

"When you look at the quality, not just the quantity but the quality, the nature of the executive orders that he has issued, he has usurped an extraordinary amount of authority within the executive branch," Lee countered. "This is not precedented, and I point to the delay — the unilateral delay, lawless delay, in my opinion — of the employer mandate as an example of this. And so, at a minimum, I think he owes us an explanation as to what his legal analysis was."

A little while before Lee questioned Holder, Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., introduced a bill that would require the executive branch to explain to Congress the reasoning behind every decision not to enforce a law.

“President Obama has not only failed to uphold several of our nation’s laws, he has vowed to continue to do so in order to enact his unpopular agenda,” DeSantis said in a the press release. “The president assured the public that his administration would be the most transparent in history, and while the president has fallen woefully short on this promise, my bill will be a step in the right direction. The American people deserve to know exactly which laws the Obama administration is refusing to enforce and why.”

The bill is called the Faithful Execution of the Law Act, an allusion to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which obligates the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Now, since President Obama has issued the least executive orders since Grover Cleveland, it would seem that perhaps you should be asking what the reason for President Bush issueing so many.

 

[Yurt]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

It is Holder's job to provide legal council to the president and justify those decisions. And he failed. Much like all of your posts.

False. That's the job of White House Council.

You're a moron.

you're a real retard. of course the attorney general gives legal advise to the president.

The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the president of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments."[1]

United States Attorney General - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jillian]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

not to mention that mike lee wouldn't understand the explanation anyway.

let them go whine about the almost 400 executive orders signed by reagan.

 

[The T]

Political posturing is political. Perception is the only thing that matters. Reality is for suckers.

Just can't tear yourself out of your dream world, eh? It shows in your posts...speaking of suckers?

 

[Yurt]

False. That's the job of White House Council.

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
  
• Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
• Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
• Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

Source: DOJ: JMD: Organization, Mission and Functions Manual: Attorney General

You're a moron.

I think you are wrong.

White House Council:

The White House Counsel is a staff appointee of the President of the United States whose role is to advise the President on all legal issues concerning the President and his Administration. The current White House Counsel is Kathryn "Kathy" Ruemmler.


The Office of Counsel to the President was created in 1943, and is responsible for advising on all legal aspects of policy questions, legal issues arising in connection with the President's decision to sign or veto legislation, ethical questions, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest during employment and post employment. The Counsel's Office also helps define the line between official and political activities, oversees executive appointments and judicial selection, handles Presidential pardons, reviews legislation and Presidential statements, and handles lawsuits against the President in his role as President, as well as serving as the White House contact for the Department of Justice.




Executive orders are sometimes also called Presidential (signing) statements.

so you claim the DOJ is wrong.

hilarious....i can't believe you're this dumb

 

[Zander]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

not to mention that mike lee wouldn't understand the explanation anyway.

let them go whine about the almost 400 executive orders signed by reagan.

Can't see the forest for the trees , eh?

The general use of "executive orders" is not being challenged.

 

[The Rabbi]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

not to mention that mike lee wouldn't understand the explanation anyway.

let them go whine about the almost 400 executive orders signed by reagan.

You mean Sen Lee, who was US Assistant District Attorney and unlike Obama actually practiced law?
Yeah, it isn't quantity, it's quality, toots.
Nice to see you've recovered from the butt hurt of supporting Carlos Danger and have come back to get your ass whipped again.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sad state of affairs.

The government no longer feels the need to ‘justify’ its actions with the founding documents or law. It can do whatever it pleases because it is for our ‘own good.’


It is really sad that the system was set up specifically to provide a check on the powers of the rest of the government. Now, the government would simply act like a whinny bunch of kids rather than doing the job they are paid to do. Congress continues to stamp it feet and bitch about everything without doing anything and the president continually refuses to budge and resorts to EO’s whenever he can to avoid actually doing his job. The entire process is broken.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Sad state of affairs.

The government no longer feels the need to ‘justify’ its actions with the founding documents or law. It can do whatever it pleases because it is for our ‘own good.’


It is really sad that the system was set up specifically to provide a check on the powers of the rest of the government. Now, the government would simply act like a whinny bunch of kids rather than doing the job they are paid to do. Congress continues to stamp it feet and bitch about everything without doing anything and the president continually refuses to budge and resorts to EO’s whenever he can to avoid actually doing his job. The entire process is broken.

Brother, you have no idea. Things are changing in this country and very little of these "changes" are for the good.

There are very dark days ahead of us…...

 

[blackhawk]

You could fill a oil tanker with all the things Holder can't explain.

 

[Oldstyle]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

Interesting concept, Synth...

If it isn't the "job" of the Attorney General to be versed in the law...then who's job IS it?

As usual, Eric Holder side steps questions from Congress about a legal issue. Evasive is getting to be his "schtick" at this point.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Attorney General Eric Holder can't explain constitutional basis for Obama's executive

It's not Eric Holder's job to tutor Mike Lee. This was not why Holder was there. He's not going to give an opinion, under oath, about something he is not required to be versed in for this hearing.

There are plenty of lawyers in the Senate. I'm sure one of them can explain it to the slow-witted Mormon.

Interesting concept, Synth...

If it isn't the "job" of the Attorney General to be versed in the law...then who's job IS it?

As usual, Eric Holder side steps questions from Congress about a legal issue. Evasive is getting to be his "schtick" at this point.

Well, that's the point in it's entirety, isn't it? It all comes back to an attitude of "I'm above the law" - that "law" being a member of the United States Congress.

Just as with Obama, Eric "Steadman" Holder is above the law and as such - not subject to it (in his mind).

 

[Oldstyle]

It's a bit ridiculous when the Attorney General of the United States can avoid answering questions from a member of Congress by saying he's not well versed enough on that law to offer any opinion. If Holder and Obama are the best and the brightest that Harvard Law School are turning out then one has to question why so many want to attend in the first place. Seriously...

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's a bit ridiculous when the Attorney General of the United States can avoid answering questions from a member of Congress by saying he's not well versed enough on that law to offer any opinion. If Holder and Obama are the best and the brightest that Harvard Law School are turning out then one has to question why so many want to attend in the first place. Seriously...

I agree completely. Where Lee went wrong was in not saying "Well then, Mr Attorney General, here is what I expect of you, when we re-subpoena you for tomorrow, is to go home, read your "law books" that apparently you don't understand and comprehend even less, then re-appear here tomorrow and offer a better explanation than the incompetent drivel that you wasted our time with today. Now, in the event that you come unprepared again tomorrow, expect charges to be filed against you for contempt of Congress"

THAT is what republicans NEED to do with these incompetent slobs. Quit pussy-footing with "decorum" and treat them as they treat you.

 

[Synthaholic]

The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
• Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
• Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
• Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

Source: DOJ: JMD: Organization, Mission and Functions Manual: Attorney General

I think you are wrong.

Now we know where thinking gets you. My source is the DoJ, which you'd know if you actually clicked the link.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Department of Justice would know a bit more about appointed duties than LOLWIKI!

If your source said what you want it to say, you would have posted the relevant info, like I did.

You lose again!

 

[Synthaholic]

Political posturing is political. Perception is the only thing that matters. Reality is for suckers.

Everyone who voted for Obama is a sucker!

Yeah, John McCain would have been great, continuing Bush's policies which got us into this depression.

 

[Synthaholic]

What would make anyone think that executive orders are not legal?

It depends on the order.

Depends on whether the POTUS is Black or White, according to conservatives.