Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Eric Holder To State Attorneys General: You Don't Have to Enforce Laws You Disagree With

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.


Sam Manila said...

Holder is stating explicitly why he should be impeached, on the grounds of dereliction of duty, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Of course, our One-party system in DC precludes that. More evidence that our country's problems will not be solved politically.
Keep yer powder dry !

Elliot said...

Funny how "progressives" condemn States' Rights advocacy as wanting to restore Jim Crow or even slavery, until they dislike the law in question or calculate that their political fortunes would fare better if the state-level Democrats did the fighting.

We can put the debate about marriage to rest if we stop seeking permission slips from the government (marriage licenses) to enter into the most personal of relationships. Historically, that's a relatively new phenomenon.

I actually had someone (a "progressive", I'm assuming) telling me that marriage was an agreement between three parties, the third being the state. Utter madness. It brings to mind the movie Shenandoah, when Charlie Anderson (Jimmy Stewart) responds to the Confederate soldier wanting to take his sons to fight.

That might me so, Johnson, but these are my sons! They don’t belong to the state. When they were babies, I never saw the state coming around with a spare tit! We never asked anything of the state, and never expected anything. We do our own living and thanks to no man for the right. But seeing as how you’re so worried about it, I’ll tell ya: If any of my boys thinks this war’s right, and wants to join in, he’s free to do it. You all hear that!? Did you hear it!? You wanna dress up like these fellas, go ahead; here’s your chance.

Anonymous said...

Title of Nobility, complete with above the law status , assigned to every member of the loyalist BAR!

If we take our courts back from those who have usurped them, it will be easier to ferret the loyalists out the legislature.

We must reinstate the lost county sheriffs and we must reconstitute Citizen Grand Jury authority whereby the accused can be FORMALLY accused in a format where title of nobility crony jurisprudence cannot save them. Forget not the power of jury nullification.

Holder presents a principle here that IS sound. It's just that he and his crew usurp a principle not due them but that in fact belongs to others.

The CITIZENRY, not states attorneys, can decide to toss out claimed violation of the law. It can refuse to prosecute or do so and then nullify at verdict.

The PROBLEM as is so oft the case is that folks within government think they have power hat they do not have.

Anonymous said...

They're fine with states refusing to enforce laws against gay marriage but they will throw a tantrum if the states refuse to enact and enforce Obamacare. I can't be the only one who notices the hypocrisy of this.

SWIFT said...

@Elliot, loved that movie. On another note; the progressive was right; marriage is an agreement between three parties. I had a good friend fight that very principle in court. He claimed the state had no business in his marriage. He lost! I knew the judge from earlier in his career. I swear 105 howitzer shells would ricochet off his skull. Still, his ruling stood.

Anonymous said...

Elliot makes an excellent point.

When one accepts a "benefit", he is then beholden to the giver of that "benefit".

We have states and individuals who accept all the goodies and are suddenly surprised when the government demands allegiance and tribute.

Part of the problem lay in the modern day misinterpretation of Romans 13. "Give unto Caesar....."

Conversely, when a man refuses any benefit from he is free to walk away. No entanglement, no adherence to their crooked web.

Anonymous said...

Elliot is exactly right.

The State Attorney Generals should stop enforcing a lot of BULLSHIT laws...like carrying concealed with out a permit....or DWI/DUI checkpoint stops....or adults freely choosing what they wish to put in their bodies, etc.

Anonymous said...

Mike, I think this should read "Eric Holder Condones Nullification."

Anonymous said...

I wonder how wittle Ewic would feel if the Attorneys General of 10 or 15 states would decline to enforce the NFA and the 1968 GCA and would, further, order the arrest of any federal agent within their respective state border who tried to enforce said laws?

Methinks that he'd rapidly develop a case of apoplexy.

Ned said...

Actually, Eliot, whomever said that marriage was a contract between three parties is partially correct.

Marriage used to be between three different parties - a man, his wife, and God.

Licensing was originally a way for the state to control potential harmful activities.

Alcohol production, and gunpowder manufacturing, as an example, were licensed.

Marriages were once performed by a minister, and recorded in the family Bible.

Then, when whites in this country wanted to get married to a Black or Native American woman or man, the stated decided it had to give its own blessing via either granting, or refusing, a marriage license.

Thus, the whole marriage licensing scam is rooted in racism.

If the government had nothing to do with marriage, gay marriage would not be an issue.

If a pastor in a church refused to marry a couple of men or two women, they could find a church that would.

Government control, and the Hegelian dialectic, it a big part of the root of evil.

Looks like Holder's message just made all the progs who excoriated states that adopted laws antithetical to federal anti-Bill of Rights statutes look like fools. Enforce it or don't, at your own pleasure.


Anonymous said...

Disciple of Night has said it very succinctly.

Elliot is absolutely right.

Anonymous said...

The question becomes, will our "nation of laws, not of men" survive until the end of Obama's presidency, whenever that might come to pass.

Some of those laws they" don't have to enforce" have to do with free and fair elections. There goes another "box".

Anonymous said...

Fine. Then I won't feel obligated to obey laws with which I disagree.

Anonymous said...

Oh good then any anti-gun laws or obamacare can be completely ignored... Good to know, good to know! (Not that I was going to abide by those laws anyway!)

Anonymous said...

Well, since Holder is the "Top" law enforcement officer in the nation and he is now delegating executive law enforcement decisions onto the state governors, he has set a precedent. Now, due to his actions, (in my view) any law enforcement officer (in Connecticut) may extoll their personal beliefs or opinion over the law of registration and confiscation of firearms and magazines (If they deem it to be prudent). At least, that's the way I see it.

Elliot said...

Ned, some people married in a religious ceremony do consider their vows to be binding to one another as well as to the creator in their faith.

And, some statists would substitute the government as the third party.

I can respect the former, even if I don't share that belief now. Plenty of good people have such values and, overall, I think that is usually a benefit for their relationship.

I find the latter to be nonsensical and even disgusting.