easy... her oath of office... spells it out quite clearly. As is the Presidents oath of office quite clear. to protect and defend the constitution for his boss, the people of America. Her duty to people of the USA and it's constitution transcends any other duty. As it is for the President as well. Trump was asking her to act contrary to her oath of office. Her oath of office is similar to the oath taken by Trump at his inauguration. She was sacked for performing as she pledged to her boss ~ the people of the USA ( and their constitution) Her sacking is therefore unconstitutional and illegal. IMO
She would loose and asked to pay the Govenment cost Opinion folks not not not prediction Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Whether she wins of not is not as important as the need to reestablish the integrity of what was her office. If Trump can sack the judiciary at whim then the USA has no constitution.
Which means they are required to inform the President when such a defense is impossible, or unethical. It is supposed to be considered, and determined, by the competent AG beforehand - so that the expense and damage of confirmed illegality is avoided.
It is true that she had a foot in both doors, the executive and the judiciary but her oath of office transcends any conflict with the executive. because at the top of the political Hierarchy sits the constitution and the USA people. Maybe someone who knows the way it works better than I can comment ( other than Michael )
nope she was doing her job as per her pledge to the people of the USA ( even as a normal citizen) and got sacked for doing so...
There are so many law suits pending on this issue that the mind boggles at how stupid the POTUS has been. I am not the only one who feels that what has occurred due to Trump's sheer stupidity is unconstitutional, illegal and damaging to the USA and number of other countries including Australia ( yes we have Iranian dual citizens who live here too _ Iran will not release a person of citizenship at all) Google, Sachs, Amazon, etc etc... Zuckerberg yet to announce. Do they have a case or not? They seem to think that they do....
Indeed. As I understand the role of the US GA, it is to enforce the legislation that her boss sets out. If she disagreed with the legislation, considered it unconstitutional, then she could resign, but her role would be to enforce whatever the President sets out, to argue for the upholding of the legislation in courts, not to simply refuse to do so because she considered it undefendable. That matter is for the courts to decide; hers is to simply to defend as best she can, no matter whether she personally agrees with it or not. Sure, you'd hope the President would be consulting his GA before making such executive orders, but that's a separate matter. In this instance she has seemingly failed to do her job, and is paying the price. And this is irrespective of whether you agree that the law is unconstitutional or not, whether it is defendable or not. Her job is to enforce it, to defend it in court. She said she wouldn't. That's the way I see it from this side of the pond, but I may not fully understand the finer detail of American politics.
It will be argued in court as you have said no doubt... however due to the exceptional circumstances of such a wide sweeping order being placed upon the public with out any preparation or notice a case against the POTUS could be made.
Ah sorry Now I get it Crystal clear She worked for the US Government ie the citizens of the country So that negates POTUS being the boss of the Govenment So when a public lawyer files a action against the Order on behalf of the citizens of the country the Attorney General sits with the public prosecutor Who sits on the Govenment side?
there is only one side - and that is the constitution That is the beauty of the American democratic system and the very thing that makes the USA "great" - the constitution and the people it protects.
The POTUS is only the CEO (president) of an organization (Government) and is directly responsible and accountable to the shareholders ( citizens ) of which he is only one ( citizen-vote)
The AG serves at the whim of the President. You clearly don't understand our system of government. The President does have to have the respect of the rest of the executive branch however. If they all resign it would be a problem. Nixon ended up resigning after he ordered is AG to fire Archibald Cox who was an appoint independent prosecutor to look into the Watergate affair. Nixon order the AG to fire Cox. The AG resigned instead. Nixon then fired Cox himself but due to the underlying circumstances ended up resigning himself.
