The question arrises what is the attorney generals job supposed to be. Is it there job to determine the law or to defend it and prosecute it. For that matter what is the role of the government, is it to protect the people or to promote itself.
These are two end of a spectrum, which must be addressed. It seems as though many people have a more communist view that the government should take care of everything and let them decide on the other hand others have the view the government is there to defend the people, provide law and order, promote infrastructure but largely step aside for daily lives.
These are two very different views. Lately most of our politicians have been voted in on the premise that the government would take care of us. Ie Obama care.
Erik Holder announced that in his opinion that Discriminatory Laws Don't Need Defending. I suppose that he is looking back to laws and orders in Nazi Germany and comparing discriminatory laws in that manor. In some ways then he is correct. Nazi Germany laws that enshrined persecution of one group against another was wrong, not just wrong but evil. Though this is not accurate analogy as no one is harming life or limb, other in reference to abortion and one group believes its just a blob of flesh, and the other that its a life. Thus it would appear to me to be that those who believe its a life can argue that they should resist the governments and when brought to trial argue that they were justified as the argument the attorney general gives and thus the president.
Ultimately the president and the attorney general are responsible for upholding the law of the land, whether they like or agree with it or not. They nor I can pick and choose. The constitution is the law of the land and says that we elect politicians who pass laws.
Some have argued that as it contradicts the constitution then the state attorney generals don't have to defend the law. The supreme court has not ruled that any states law on same sex marriage has breached the federal law, thus that argument has no grounds. We are a society that has said we have the rule of law, but now the attorney general says we can pick and choose which of those we will enforce. Are not all laws discriminatory in that they say one set of people, can or can not do something. Ie. they say those who speed will get a ticket, those who break in and rob a house can not and will be penalized. Thats what a lawful society does, it eliminates the arbitrary of individuals. The DOJ/AG has to work with the courts, but they are not the court, the courts are the courts and the AG is the AG prosecuting the governments case.
I actually don't have a huge issue with the whole point as I don't see it as any different than what they have had for ten years, it changes nothing under God. It allows a lot of people to get on their high horse and push people away on all sides, but I do have an issue with the government spending so much time on it when they have other things to do, like fix the health care bill.
Erik Holder on discriminitory laws don't need defending
These are two end of a spectrum, which must be addressed. It seems as though many people have a more communist view that the government should take care of everything and let them decide on the other hand others have the view the government is there to defend the people, provide law and order, promote infrastructure but largely step aside for daily lives.
These are two very different views. Lately most of our politicians have been voted in on the premise that the government would take care of us. Ie Obama care.
Erik Holder announced that in his opinion that Discriminatory Laws Don't Need Defending. I suppose that he is looking back to laws and orders in Nazi Germany and comparing discriminatory laws in that manor. In some ways then he is correct. Nazi Germany laws that enshrined persecution of one group against another was wrong, not just wrong but evil. Though this is not accurate analogy as no one is harming life or limb, other in reference to abortion and one group believes its just a blob of flesh, and the other that its a life. Thus it would appear to me to be that those who believe its a life can argue that they should resist the governments and when brought to trial argue that they were justified as the argument the attorney general gives and thus the president.
Ultimately the president and the attorney general are responsible for upholding the law of the land, whether they like or agree with it or not. They nor I can pick and choose. The constitution is the law of the land and says that we elect politicians who pass laws.
Some have argued that as it contradicts the constitution then the state attorney generals don't have to defend the law. The supreme court has not ruled that any states law on same sex marriage has breached the federal law, thus that argument has no grounds. We are a society that has said we have the rule of law, but now the attorney general says we can pick and choose which of those we will enforce. Are not all laws discriminatory in that they say one set of people, can or can not do something. Ie. they say those who speed will get a ticket, those who break in and rob a house can not and will be penalized. Thats what a lawful society does, it eliminates the arbitrary of individuals. The DOJ/AG has to work with the courts, but they are not the court, the courts are the courts and the AG is the AG prosecuting the governments case.
Erik Holder on discriminitory laws don't need defending
No comments:
Post a Comment