• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we remove the DOJ from the umbrella of the Presidency?

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
9,402
Reaction score
4,222
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

There is no department which serves the specific Executive function moreso than the DOJ. It is exactly where it belongs.
 

Suburban Jedi

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2018
Messages
524
Reaction score
203
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

Until President Von Clownstick(with the exception of Nixon),Presidents stayed away from even the appearance of interfering with DOJ investigations which might involve them. Obviously today's GOP cares as little about propriety and justice as Democrats did under Clinton.
 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
9,402
Reaction score
4,222
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no department which serves the specific Executive function moreso than the DOJ. It is exactly where it belongs.

That is the exact problem I think there is with the present set up, it serves the president who heads the executive branch. He can both use and abuse the operations of the DOJ for political purposes if he so desires. We normally have presidents that leave the DOJ to do its work unimpeded, but this and several other presidents have interfered with the operations of the DOJ for their own political purposes and that ought to end. The only way to do so is to remove the DOJ in part or as a whole from the control of one man, the president.
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
20,590
Reaction score
7,673
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As to a response to the thread title:
It depends on whether the Congress, both sides of the Hill ever decides again to truly satisfy its Oversight function. if that continues to be a broken branch of government then there is plenty to pull away from the administrative branch. Justice is surely one of them. if the Senate were doing its job it would be making life miserable for Donald over the laughably absurd and self serving Whitaker pick.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
That is the exact problem I think there is with the present set up, it serves the president who heads the executive branch. He can both use and abuse the operations of the DOJ for political purposes if he so desires. We normally have presidents that leave the DOJ to do its work unimpeded, but this and several other presidents have interfered with the operations of the DOJ for their own political purposes and that ought to end. The only way to do so is to remove the DOJ in part or as a whole from the control of one man, the president.

What you're saying is that the Executive should be uninvolved in the very thing the Executive mostly exists to do.

You're also saying that the walls of separation power should be broken down, and the Legislature should take on Executive functions.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
25,621
Reaction score
22,290
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

Absolutely a horrible idea, Congress is already slowly trying to cross the swim lanes into both the Executive and Judicial branches in one regard a power grab. Placing the DOJ under Congress would further weaponize the department as a means to go after opposition, and subject the department to the absolute dysfunction of Congress. We are talking about a highly politicized area of governance that enjoys high reelection rates but horrible approval rates.

Congress is for legislation... that is it.
 

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
9,099
Reaction score
9,736
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

Why not just dissolve the Executive Branch entirely at that point? The purpose of the Executive Branch is literally to execute, i.e. enforce the laws of the United States. So if it is stripped of its right to oversee law enforcement via the Department of Justice, it is stripped of its core function. We may as well go to a Parliamentary system of that point and dissolve the independent executive branch.
 

bearpoker

aspiring cat lady
DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
17,249
Reaction score
10,057
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
What you're saying is that the Executive should be uninvolved in the very thing the Executive mostly exists to do.

You're also saying that the walls of separation power should be broken down, and the Legislature should take on Executive functions.

Actually, it might make sense to put justice under the judicial branch. I agree that putting it under legislative wouldn't work. Any change would require constitutional amendment.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Actually, it might make sense to put justice under the judicial branch. I agree that putting it under legislative wouldn't work. Any change would require constitutional amendment.

It's the same separation of powers problem. The Executive is the Executive and the Judiciary is the Judiciary. Anything else is a conflict of interest, at the very least.
 

PleasantValley

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
4,098
Reaction score
1,991
Location
Henderson, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

I have been saying that since they closed ranks and were all one-sided about Hillary.
If i remember correctly, I said we will have this kind of corruption was long as the directors of the DOJ and FBI are POLITICAL appointments.
This means they can be fired for not towing the POLITICAL line and putting those priorities as number one.

So, yes, I am with you on this.
We need to depoliticize the DOJ and FBI.
Even under Hoover the FBI was used for political purposes.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
52,415
Reaction score
22,297
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

That cannot work. Who in Congress? Would you rather it be a committee in the last Congress headed up by the likes of Nunes? I wouldn't trust that DoJ any more than I trust it led by Trump (and DoJ has appeared to resist being corrupted). And the DoJ is directly accountable to the Congress through its ability to approve of high level appointments, and in extreme cases impeach and remove officials, up to and including the AG and POTUS. DoJ also answers to the courts, which can overrule them if they stray from their proper lane. And every four years is another election for POTUS.
 

jimbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 30, 2011
Messages
19,078
Reaction score
6,743
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

I think the last thing we need is having the DOJ under the direction of the Congress.

If I felt the need to move DOJ, it would be toward Judicial. They in theory at least are not motivated by politics.

I'd also move Senate back to the states or do away with it altogether, but that's another thread.
 

Casca XV

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
1,402
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

I have an idea that the second a Leftist Democrat is back in WH you would want the DOJ back under that umbrella.

Do you feel shame when you look back and see that Obama actually did what Leftists project onto President Trump?
 

ThoughtEx.

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
5,138
Reaction score
2,124
Location
North America
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think Congress should take the DOJ, I just think we should be more careful about electing known con men.

Everyone forgets the Republicans chose him in the primary, it wasn't just a hold your nose vote for all of them. They had plenty of great candidates who would have beaten Hillary hands down.

What I would like to see, is Congress take back the war powers it's granted the President. Should never have been granted in the first place. And I want to see power to create money returned to Congress. Every time a Pres comes in and deregulates, inflation kicks us all in the balls. Time to stop that cycle.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

Apparently you do not know how our government works. The sole reason for the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws that Congress passes. How exactly is the Executive Branch going to do this without a DOJ?
 

ipsofacto

Banned
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
732
Reaction score
161
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What you're saying is that the Executive should be uninvolved in the very thing the Executive mostly exists to do.

You're also saying that the walls of separation power should be broken down, and the Legislature should take on Executive functions.


No. But the Attorney General should be required to be only by approval/consent of the Senate.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No. But the Attorney General should be required to be only by approval/consent of the Senate.

And the Attorney General, in fact, is.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,749
Reaction score
29,888
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

Tell you what...

Change the Constitution and we'll talk.
 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
9,402
Reaction score
4,222
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Apparently you do not know how our government works. The sole reason for the Executive Branch is to enforce the laws that Congress passes. How exactly is the Executive Branch going to do this without a DOJ?

You could split the DOJ into those who investigate crimes and those who actually prosecute crimes. Thus the president could continue to prosecute those who the investigation find there is sufficient evidence to do so.
 

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
9,402
Reaction score
4,222
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tell you what...

Change the Constitution and we'll talk.

Actually there is nothing in the constitution that gives the President the power over the DOJ. There was not even a DOJ until 1870.
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,835
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
As we have seen with this president and others, having the president "in charge" of the DOJ leads to only bad things. Although there is a precedent for the president not being able to force the DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can force an investigation. I think it would be better to just place the DOJ under the wing of the congress or break up the DOJ into the parts that investigate and those that prosecute and place one under the president and one under congress. In the end, the DOJ should not be a political wing of which party. Thoughts?

Actually the function and activities of the DOJ do not always lead to bad things. Only in the hands of a corrupt or unethical President does the DOJ do bad things. But certainly the Executive Branch is where the DOJ belongs as are all other departments and functions of the federal government.

In a large corporation/organization, the Board of Directors sets the policies, goals, and objectives and it is given to the CEO to manage all departments and functions to carry those out. In a government, the city counsel or state legislature or the congress sets the policies, goals, and objectives and it is given to the mayor or governor or president to manage all department and functions to carry those out.

The only problem we have had in the last couple of decades or so is a mostly feckless congress that refuses to do its job and leaves it to the President to do.
 
Top Bottom