- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,303
- 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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
Tell you what...
Change the Constitution and we'll talk.
And the Attorney General, in fact, is.
Senate never voted on Whitaker.
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?
OK. Why exactly are you telling me this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?