HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why did the founders set ...

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:26 PM

Why did the founders set it up to where the President would appoint the AG?


This seems like a recipe for disaster because if the President is like Trump and fires everyone who doesn't bow down to him and clearly makes sure he puts a patsy in place, the system crumbles like day old sandwich bread.

The AG should be someone completely independent and not hired by the President but by the Congress it seem.


Is there something I don't understand?

12 replies, 670 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:28 PM

1. Because the AG is the head of the DoJ, which is part of the executive branch,

of which the president is the head. AGs can be impeached, though, and they can even go to prison for obstruction of justice. Just ask John Mitchell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:29 PM

2. You miss the "advice and consent of the senate" part of the process. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:29 PM

3. Congress is supposed to approve the AG and the AG can be impeached and removed by congress ...

... and not even for criminal reasons similar to the president.

The issue we have now is the KGOP is party before country and don't believe in liberal democracies ... they're unAmerican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:52 PM

9. This is the answer, nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:30 PM

4. Legislature writes the laws, the executive enforces them, the judicial applies/ interprets them. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:36 PM

5. What happened to the first one is kind of interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #5)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:47 PM

8. Washington held his first full cabinet meeting on February 25, 1793,

with Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of War Henry Knox, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph.

Washington rewarded Randolph for his support. Randolph was appointed as the first U.S. Attorney General in September 1789, maintaining precarious neutrality in the feud between Thomas Jefferson (of whom Randolph was a second cousin) and Alexander Hamilton. In President Washington’s cabinet, as in the ratification dispute of 1787–1788, Randolph tried to bring people together, rather than jumping to hasty conclusions and ignoring the potential costs in pursuit of self-righteous ideological purity.

When Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State in 1793, Randolph succeeded him to the position. The major diplomatic initiative of his term was the Jay Treaty with Britain in 1794, but it was Hamilton who devised the plan and wrote the instructions, leaving Randolph the nominal role of signing the papers. Randolph was hostile to the resulting treaty, and almost gained Washington's ear. Near the end of his term as Secretary of State, negotiations for Pinckney's Treaty were finalized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Randolph

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:42 PM

6. So John Adams could prosecute his political enemies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 08:47 PM

7. Our checks & balances are not working on this score. I watch with interest what happens in Israel

given the Israeli AG has indicted Netanyahu. Curious, I searched for how they select their AG...

According to Google, the Israeli Attorney General, who is a civil servant, is appointed by the Government upon the recommendation of the Minister of Justice; the term of his appointment is not defined. Removal of an attorney general from office is effected in a fashion similar to his appointment, but this has hardly ever been implemented.

Hmmm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 09:16 PM

10. If hired by Congress,

then again, not completely independent.

If elected, then campaigns often on things that are related to law enforcement, and a lot of jurisdictions see how that plays out--not always in positive ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 09:20 PM

11. If the special counsel was truly independent, this wouldn't be an issue.

The real problem here is that the AG controls Mueller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tinrobot (Reply #11)

Thu Apr 18, 2019, 09:49 PM

12. Well look...I don't want Mueller wi independant power to act as cop, judge, and jury any more than I

would have wanted Ken Starr to be able to behave that way.

Just sayin, and Ken Starr was fucking bad enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread