Because, you know, they didn’t say what he wanted to hear on the issue of representation of the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives.
Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.* * * In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.
Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the solicitor general’s office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment.
Quite a different standard between the two positions by the two sets of lawyers. One is examining it from the standard of “is it constitutional?” The other gave an answer based on the standard “is it defensible?” That is a big difference, friends – and that Holder would reject the advice of those he calls the best and the brightest in the Justice Department on the matter is rather telling. Especially since this has been the consistent opinion of the OLC dating back to roughly the Kennedy Administration. After all, the District of Columbia is, self-evidently, not a state, for if it were there would never have been a need to amend the Constitution to grant it electoral votes in a presidential election.
There are three ways to proceed here that are in keeping with the Constitution:
1) Pass an amendment giving the District representation in Congress.
2) Include the population of the District with Maryland for representation purposes, and give it representation in that manner (the territory of the District was granted to the Federal Government by Maryland over two centuries ago).
3) With the approval of Maryland, admit Washington, DC as a state.
And for those who argue that Congress should grant voting representation to the District, I’d like to ask why the same should not be granted to inhabitants of Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and every other territory in which US citizens are denied the right to vote?
eDV6uV wrkebmclqjul, [url=http://mweewccpotka.com/]mweewc
Read more in Holder Turns Down Opinion From Best Legal Minds At Justice
richard j davidson said:
WILL THE DOJ INVESTIGATE THEIR OWN? WHO WILL DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION? OR WILL THERE BE A DOUBLE S
Read more in Holder Turns Down Opinion From Best Legal Minds At Justice
 |
Trackback Information for Holder Turns Down Opinion From Best Legal Minds At Justice
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/260995Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Holder Turns Down Opinion From Best Legal Minds At Justice'.
Comments on Holder Turns Down Opinion From Best Legal Minds At Justice
WILL THE DOJ INVESTIGATE THEIR OWN? WHO WILL DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION? OR WILL THERE BE A DOUBLE STANDARD OF CIVIL RIGHTS?
March 29, 2009 Certified Mail 7103 7975 6410 3203 5540
Senator Harry Reid
333 Las Vegas Blvd., South # 8016
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Dear Senator Reid:
As a respected elected official and concern for the public interest the enclosed a matter of bribery and influence peddling in the Executive Branch, Department of Justice. The correspondence or evidence is seen to prevent an investigation of a federal criminal statute, title 18 sec. 1510. Casework, or review, is provided in the enclosed Integrity Committee letter dated February 13, 2009.
To directly or indirectly, corruptly give, offer or promise anything of value to influence an act or to prevent an act can be construed as bribery.
The Integrity Committee letter states the Inspector General EEOC has discretion to open an investigation of a violation of law, title 18. This is patently untrue. To forward a matter of apparent violation of title 18 to a criminal investigator is a 15-minute task. No mention of EEOC ethics official that is required by 28 U.S. Code sec. 535 to report any information relating to violation of any criminal statute, title 18. Assistant Legal Counsel APR 2006 letter has an opposite story to direct a matter of alteration of records, title 18 sec. 1001, to the United States Attorney’s Office. No mention in the OLC letter the IG discretion to open an investigation. What is EEOC hiding not to comply with laws, rules and regulations of the United States? How many other hard working Americans may have been denied fair and impartial treatment?
The Inspector General apparently was promised or given something of value to have duped, misled, or possibly lied to a federal investigative agent to make a false writing of a review in a civil rights claim. Public service is public trust. Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens. This is a force, sense of duty an obligation of public service to comply with the law, rules, and regulations of the United States. Clearly EEOC Washington, DC, field offices, Nevada, California, Arizona, North Carolina and others have a double standard of the obligation of public service and do not share the concept of equal treatment under the law.
As an elected official and Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and equal treatment under the law that your office promptly forward the entire correspondence to the Attorney General for comment. It is the obligation, an Oath of Office the Attorney General to defend the Constitution and defend equal treatment under the law. Not to do so would only embolden others in public service to perpetuate bribery and influence peddling for private gain. This would add the perception there are those that choose not to have a responsibility to the United States and its citizens may not be fit for public service.
I feel confident your office and colleagues would like to hear the comment and proposed action by the Attorney General of the United States in a civil rights matter.
Sincerely,
CERTIFIED MAIL
Richard J. Davidson
|| Posted by richard j davidson, April 3, 2009 04:46 PM ||5122 Cedros Ave.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker
EEOC & others
eDV6uV wrkebmclqjul, [url=http://mweewccpotka.com/]mweewccpotka[/url], [link=http://jtkqmkpzkyvc.com/]jtkqmkpzkyvc[/link], http://kywxnvzumiuu.com/
|| Posted by ohknawiyztx, August 14, 2009 06:20 AM ||Post a comment