Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue.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.So, the Attorney General doesn't like the opinion from his department's Office of Legal Counsel, so he goes lawyer shopping.
He asks the Solicitor General, who would argue the case before the US Supreme Court. The Government's "hired gun" said they could make the case. So, what does the Office of Legal Counsel do and can we save money by eliminating them?
Now I have two issues. First of all, I believe the idea of giving DC a vote in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional. (The article's lede is misleading. It suggests the People of DC can't vote.) Second, I think that the Attorney General had decided on the answer and then looked around until he found the advice he wanted.
The office of our Representative, Niki Tsongas, says she favors this bill. If you agree with me, please EMail her and give her your reason for thinking she should not vote for this bill (being unconstitutional being one such reason—and a good one).
Thanks
Regards — Cliff
1 comment:
Republicrats deciding first and then looking for excuses second reminds me of nothing so much as the past administration's search for excuses on both torture and their own executive omnipotence. It's disgusting in whatever guise we find it, including this one.
The problem is in people sitting by and forbearing abuses of executive and constitutional power whenever it's "their" party, and railing against it only when it's someone else's.
I blame politicos of BOTH parties for this nonsense.
Post a Comment