Wouldn't it make more sense to put the Justice Department under the Judicial Branch...?

[kentuck]

...than under the Executive Branch, as it is presently?

Rather than have the Attorney General answer to the President, any legal questions, that he might have, would be answered by the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, with the assistance of the Associate Judges. That would make the interpretation of our laws much more just, in my opinion.

If we ever have another constitutional convention, I hope someone would bring up this idea?

[uponit7771]

1. The president is charged with enforcement and can choose to prioritize, the judicial branch wouldn't

... do such IINM.

[Sneederbunk]

2. No.

[unc70]

3. No. That would reduce checks and balances

You do not want the DOJ, FBI, police under the courts which try cases and interpret the law

[kentuck]

4. It doesn't seem to be working in its present form?

What would be a good way to fix it or improve it?

[JI7]

9. what isn't working ?

[kentuck]

15. The Atty General seems to be working for the executive?

In fact, the entire Justice Dept seems to be scared and confused by their "boss".

[EffieBlack]

27. One bad AG appointed by a bad president is not reason to rewrite Article II of the Constitution

We fix that with elections.

[atreides1]

28. We hope we can fix it!

We have no idea how far Trump/Miller/Kelly are willing to go...it's conceivable that all three may already have a contingency plan in place, should Mueller bring charges against Trump!

We already know we cannot trust the Republicans in Congress, 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices, the current flock of federal judges that Trump is putting in place, most if not all of his cabinet members, Mattis and McMaster can't be trusted either!

There may not be any midterm elections?

[customerserviceguy]

37. Agreed

Federal judges and SCOTUS justices are appointed for life, everybody in the executive branch has a job with an expiration date. Separation of powers is the answer to this. It's true, the office of Attorney General is not mentioned in the Constitution, but was established by the Judiciary Act of 1794, which would have been during the lifetime of most of the Founding Fathers, who could well have objected to it. The Act also set rules for the judiciary branch, such as the number of Supreme Court Justices, and was a fulfillment of the principles of Article III of the Constitution.

I'm fine with the system the way it is, although I despise the current office holder of Attorney General.

[EffieBlack]

39. Great, coherent analysis

Thanks!

[Princess Turandot]

5. The Justice Department is also in charge of the US attorneys...

...and the policies relating to federal prosecutions. Having Justice report to the Judicial branch would undoubtedly lead to claims of bias - if only in appearance - at the federal trial/appeal level.

[NCTraveler]

6. Then they might not do what my President wants them to do.

Two steps forward, one step back. Don’t be taken in by the step back as if it were the whole walk.

[shanny]

7. No.

One is active, the other reactive.

[Voltaire2]

8. No.

[writerJT]

10. No way.

[longship]

11. Instead, make the AG a separately elected position.

It would still be within the Executive branch, but would not be under the president's perview.

[EffieBlack]

14. Bad idea

But also, not appropriate under the Constitution, under which the President and Vice President are the only nationally-elected officers. We’d have to amend the constitution - and why limit it to the AG? Why not SOS or Secy of Education, too?

An elected AG would not only be unconstitutional, it would be a mess.

[longship]

16. Well, I am not the only one to recommend it.

And of course it would require a constitutional amendment.

The idea is to disconnect the Justice department from the presidency. Given historic constitutional crises, like in 1973, and this past year, one might at least entertain a separation between the presidency and Justice.

The issue may be whether it could be a matter of discussion. Of course, there will always be those who do not want any discussion whatsoever and will call it a "bad idea".

My best to you.

[kentuck]

17. That is a lot of dangerous power in the hands of a malevolent president.

No doubt about that. We see it right now.

It would be better if someone else could fire and replace Jeff Sessions, rather than the president. They need to figure out a way to make the Justice Dept more independent from the Executive, in my opinion.

[Igel]

19. There are lots of places where attorneys general are elected.

They become politicized. They engage in prosecutions for the purposes of getting various groups to vote for them, they avoid prosecutions to make sure they don't piss off voters. People who aren't qualified but get votes get elected. People get elected to a prosecutorial and investigative position that have political grudges against those above them or adjacent to them in the hierarchy.

The objections to the AG being in the executive is that an elected official is trying to influence an investigation. This proposal makes the influence much more direct.

[EffieBlack]

22. Calling something a bad idea is an opinion, not an attempt to shut down a discussion

My opinion that your suggestion is a bad idea in no way stops the discussion - it’s actually a part of it, unless you think the only participants in the discussion should be people who agree with you ...

Anyway - I don’t think a constitutional crisis every generation or so should necessarily force a constitutional amendment changing government structure - in fact, that’s the wrong reason and time to make drastic changes. And the Saturday Night Masacre didn’t ultimately work and the president who provoked it was nearly impeached and left office. The Constitution worked the way it was intended.

An elected Attorney General would not address the current problem. Mueller is in place because Congress - at least one Senator, Al Franken - did their oversight job and forced Sessions to recuse himself. An elected AG would not be subject to the same degree of oversight and could run roughshod over the department just like Trump is running roughshod over the country.

This would a also require more than a simple amendment to the Constitution it would completely upend, in fact, rip apart the notion of the three branches of government and the executive branch’s role of enforcing the country’s laws - which includes developing, implementing and overseeing all of the laws, policies, rules and regulations of the entire executive branch, including all of the other canunet departments and agencies that report to the president. This duty would be handed over to a newly created fourth branch of government. An unworkable nightmare.
As I said, I think it’s a terrible idea that wouldn’t solve the problems we’re concerned about and creating a whole slew of new ones.

You have a nice day, too.

[MarvinGardens]

29. North Carolina has an elected AG.

And much of the rest of the cabinet. It has its plusses and minuses, but I would not call it a mess.

[EffieBlack]

31. An elected AG is not what would make it a mess

It would be a mess because it would require completely redoing the U.S. Constitution in order to restructure the government and its fundamental principles. State election of AGs is in those states’ constitutions and the systems of government were created within that framework.

[MarvinGardens]

33. I understand your point now and agree. (nt)

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. No, because it undermines the concept of an independent judiciary (n/t)

[EffieBlack]

13. No - not only impractical but unconstitutonal

The judiciary is charged with interpreting the law under the Constitution’s Article III. It has no constitutional authority to also enforce the laws. The Constitution assignes that authority to the executive branch.

[Demsrule86]

18. No, Judges are not elected. At least we have recourse with a president.

Vote him out.

[Igel]

20. It puts the prosecutors and the judges on the same team.

While very Roman law-ish, it's got quite a few drawbacks.

If you have judges and prosecutors who truly want to be independent and insist, no matter what the cause, that they have no direct interest in the outcome but just seek truth, it can work. But I don't know of more than a few in this day and age who get close to that; I know lots of people who insist that their biases constitute no bias, and their interests are always the common good, but those are exactly the kind of people you must never put in those positions.

(And, yes, the English common law 'adversarial' system has its own distortions: One seeks a win at any cost, at the expense of the common good, of common sense, and of the very idea of seeking truth. It's assumed that perfect knowledge and perfect prosecution and defense will reach the truth, but again, "go team" and "we must win because we're right" have become virtues.)

[kentuck]

21. The independence of the justice system must be assured.

It cannot operate at the whim of some authoritarian. If not under the Judicial Branch, perhaps there should be some other arrangement, other than the Executive?

[EffieBlack]

23. Youre callling for the elimination of a system that isnt broken

What you’re proposing is the creation of a fourth branch of government when our three branches work fine. Right now, the system is being tested and tested mightily. But the way to fix it is through the political process, not by recreating a new system on the fly because it’s not working to our liking at this moment.

The AG does more than oversee the FBI - he/she also works hand in glove with all of the other cabinet departments to develop and enforce all laws, policy, rules and regulations. The AG can’t and should not be an independent actor. If they were, they’d have no ability to do any of that, because they’d be prohibited under the doctrine of separation of powers.

[kentuck]

24. Unless, of course, it is an Atty-General like John Mitchell or Jeff Sessions...

Then, they tend to use the FBI and CIA for their own purposes or the purposes of their President.

[EffieBlack]

25. The country and Constitution survived John Mitchell; they'll survive Jeff Sessions

And don’t forget, in between Mitchell and Sessions, we’ve had the likes of Janet Reno, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

Good luck ever getting anyone close to them ever again should the AG become the only other office besides president and VP chosen by a national general election ...

[JI7]

34. Exactly, people will vote for tough on crime types

And we know by tough on crime they mean tough on black and brown people.

[EffieBlack]

40. Theyll also vote for AG based on factors having nothing to do with qualities that make a good AG

Good politicians who are popular and can win elections areN’t necessarily what we want in an AG.

This is one of the reasons I don’t like elected judges, who tend to be elected based on name recognition, local popularity and vague pro,isles to “do justice” and “be fair.”

Roy Moore being Exhibit A for how this works.

[RandySF]

26. No

Judges should not be in the business of overseeing arrests and/or prosecutions. I support hiring US attorneys and marshals as career civil servants.

[mackdaddy]

30. No. But it would make more sense to have a Competent and Sane person as President....

But, hey what you gonna do?

[sl8]

32. Put the folks that arrest you and the folks that judge you on the same team?

That would be super efficient!

[X_Digger]

35. No. One branch writes the laws, one enforces them, one adjudicates them. Balanced. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

36. Justice Dept is like the prosecutors.

[Caliman73]

38. Others have already said this, but ... No.

The Justice department should actually be left where it is or made into a more autonomous agency within the Executive Branch. The Justice Department in charged with enforcing federal law within the states. If a State is doing something that is violating areas where the Federal Government has some jurisdiction, then the Justice Department can step in, like when the Southern states were not prosecuting the murders of Civil Rights workers or nullifying them in juries. It was Robert Kennedy as attorney general and the Justice Department that began investigating the State and local jurisdictions for "Violating the Civil Rights" of the people that were murdered.

We don't want to rearrange departments that have been mostly well lead since the 1870's because an asshat is in the White House for 4 years.

The Judicial branch is responsible for making sure that law comport with constitutional principles, not for enforcing the laws.