Shouldnt the Justice Department file against the "Sanctuary Cities" also, instead of Arizona?
Absolutely. There is a clear double standard emanating from the White House and it does appear that even our own president is not in the slightest bit interested in actively enforcing federal law in order to protect citizens in the Southern border states. It is almost some kind of payback.
Why isn't the Justice Department Investigating the NBA?
the credibility is already gone, NBA fans are more interested in what player is boning Kim Kardashian than anything that happens on the court
NBA will continue to get worse until another Bird/Magic thing comes along
or another guy like Jordan who just changes the game
nothing can be done about it, NBA now is like it was in the 70s, a bunch of selfish players that want to go party in South Beach or New york rather than entertain fans
Should the Justice department ignore the fact the Supreme Court has ruled only congress has the power to ?
No and if any other entity ever tries to regulate immigration then they should take action. That simply hasn't happened in recent memory..
State and local officials have long arrested illegal aliens when they ran across them..
Why is it instinct for the Department of Justice to appeal rulings in constitutional lawsuits?
Lawyers do very little by "instict." They make considered decisions. The DOJ appeals only a small percentage of the cases that they are involved in. In most cases, the DOJ cannot appeal at all. If you want to know why some specific lawyer would want to appeal some specific ruling, ask that lawyer.
I have a question about an entry level Department of Justice Job?
Not sure about DOJ, but I do know that state government jobs, they wait until they have interviewed everyone and have settled on various people before expending the resources to do a background check on the potential employee.
Otherwise, they would have to do hundreds of background checks and weed people out that way, rather than weeding them out in the interview process. It seems to be a waste of time to do it before anyone has been interviewed.
So, my best guess is, that the credit and background check is done AFTER the DOJ has decided to hire you. Most employers ask for the social security number on the employment application.
The time to run the fingerprints through DOJ varies - I have heard anywhere from 1 day to 1 week, depending on the backlog of fingerprints.
Plus, depending on the type of job it is, the DOJ may do more than a cursory credit & background check on you.
How come no one for five months in the Justice Department has been able to tell who approved the sale of guns?
They'll find Oliver North somewhere. Dig him out of obscurity and drag him before some senate committee. Or someone just like him.
Trust me, whoever did it won't be taking the fall. Especially not in an Obama administration. They can't define the word accountability.
Why is civil rights panel investigating justice department over the new black panther case?
You Know Obama getting away with a lot right now. but we have a very fair and loving God, who tells us ,Vengeance is mine and I will repay. So just trust God. that's our hope as Christians. God Bless and Merry Christmas.
How can I get my police report from department of justice in sacramento - I'm in Texas?
You should contact the public defenders office or legal aid in your area to see if they can help. California requires an (electronic) or finger print to get a back ground check. They Pub Defen office or legal aid may be able to speed up the process for you.
where is the knoxville, tn department of justice located?
I'm assuming you are talking about Knox County rather than the City of Knoxville. Go to www.knoxcounty.org and click the "Laws and Justice" tab at the top for the various offices. Most are at 400 Main Street, but double check which office or court you are looking for.
Why hasn't Obama Pressured the Justice Department to arrest Bush for the war in Iraq?
The decision to go to war in Iraq was an official action taken by the former President and any official actions taken by the President can only be illegal if Congress determines those actions to be illegal (like the war in Iraq). Had they impeached and convicted Bush, then he could have faced charges.
Had the President broken a statuary law that had nothing to due with carrying out his official duties, he could have been arrested when he left office. But no such crimes has ever been levied against the former President.
Besides the President cannot order his arrest even if he wanted to, he can only direct the Justice Department to investigate Bush, but an arrest would not be his decision.
No sitting President is going to try to get a Former President charged with an alleged crime while carrying out his official duties, they would leave that to Congress.
Even if only because no President will do anything could limit their own power or have themselves be next on the chopping block by next President who is of the opposing party.
The bottom line is, it's over.
The Justice department and the ACLU have the Arizona immigration law in front of a federal judge today?
Well its in front of a liberal activist judge so more than likely that judge will rule against Arizona and then will be sent to the 9th circuit of appeals because Arizona will keep appealing all the way to the Supreme court because liberal activist judges do not care about the constitution
why is the department of justice making california close medical bud dispensaries?
Marijuana is illegal, by federal law. States have the authority to write their own basis of the existing laws. In this case, the federal governement stands strongly behind the law, and although california authorities aren't bound to enforce federal law over state law, that just means that the feds will come in and do it themselves, they have that authority. This isn't anything new, it's been going on for years. California, by allowing it's citizens to believe there are no consequences is ultimately getting them trumped up federal charges for what would otherwise be a misdemeanor.
To answer your other question, marijuana is considered a gateway drug. It has an adverse effect on your body and limits your inhibitions. Our founding fathers never intended this country to take on a lifestyle similar to amsterdam, nor will the federal government allow it, and I applaud them for their actions while I sympathize with the poor people whom examples are being made.
But just for the record, if you come to Texas with your RX they'll put you in the pin for longer than the feds.
Why has Obama's justice department decided to send terrorists to a federal trial in NY City?
New Yorkers are for it, the justice department is for it, Mayor Bloomberg is for it....
New Yorkers DESERVE to try them in NY and hand down the verdict in NY.
I think it's poetic justice.
These were not military people that were representing a government. They acted as individuals.
Many 9/11 families are hoping to attend. I hope this brings them some closure.
How long does it take for Department of Justice to Respond ?
What I would do is to call them and see if they got your information, maybe it got lost in there system somewhere. I know I was dealing with the American Disability Act for my daughter and I had to keep calling them before I actually heard from them. If you need to do this, that is what I would do. Be determined, and just keep on calling them, and leave a shit load of messages to let them no you mean business, and you want shit done. Good luck.
Is Obama planning on filing a lawsuit against ice the Justice Department contends that the U.S. Constitution?
The U.S. Constitution does not protect illegals or those who are foreigners who came legally. Unless they fit the criteria set forth. Which are, naturalized or acquired any domicile or residence in the United States
Under the 5th Amendment
"Aliens: Entry and Deportation .--To aliens who have never been naturalized or acquired any domicile or residence in the United States, the decision of an executive or administrative officer, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, with regard to whether or not they shall be permitted to enter the country, is due process of law. 43 Since the status of a resident alien returning from abroad is equivalent to that of an entering alien, his exclusion by the Attorney General without a hearing, on the basis of secret, undisclosed information, also is deemed consistent with due process. 44 The complete authority of Congress in the matter of admission of aliens justifies delegation of power to executive officers to enforce the exclusion of aliens afflicted with contagious diseases by imposing upon the owner of the vessel bringing any such alien into the country a money penalty, collectible before and as a condition of the grant of clearance. 45 If the person seeking admission claims American citizenship, the decision of the Secretary of Labor may be made final, but it must be made after a fair hearing, however summary, and must find adequate support in the evidence. A decision based upon a record from which relevant and probative evidence has been omitted is not a fair hearing. 46 Where the statute made the decision of an immigration inspector final unless an appeal was taken to the Secretary of the Treasury, a person who failed to take such an appeal did not, by an allegation of citizenship, acquire a right to a judicial hearing on habeas corpus. 47
Deportation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. 48 The authority to deport is drawn from the power of Congress to regulate the entrance of aliens and impose conditions upon their continued liberty to reside within the United States. Findings of fact reached by executive officers after a fair, though summary deportation hearing may be made conclusive. 49 In Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 50 however, the Court intimated that a hearing before a tribunal which did not meet the standards of impartiality embodied in the Administrative Procedure Act 51 might not satisfy the requirements of due process of law. To avoid such constitutional doubts, the Court construed the law to disqualify immigration inspectors as presiding officers in deportation proceedings. Except in time of war, deportation without a fair hearing or on charges unsupported by any evidence is a denial of due process which may be corrected on habeas corpus. 52 In contrast with the decision in United States v. Ju Toy 53 that a person seeking entrance to the United States was not entitled to a judicial hearing on his claim of citizenship, a person arrested and held for deportation is entitled to a day in court if he denies that he is an alien. 54 A closely divided Court has ruled that in time of war the deportation of an enemy alien may be ordered summarily by executive action; due process of law does not require the courts to determine the sufficiency of any hearing which is gratuitously afforded to the alien. 55"
And these are aliens seeking legal avenues for residency. Which is why illegals do not have the same rights, and should not have the same rights as their counterparts who come legally. Illegals do not have permission from Congress, expressed or otherwise to be in the country at all.
why do Cons keep complaining about the justice department doing its job by suing AZ?
The question should be what are LIBERALS AND THE PRESIDENT AFRAID OF?
AMERICANS ARE AFRAID OF BEING RAPED, MURDERED, KIDNAPPED ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK (DUH, DO YOU THINK AL QEADA IS NOT HEARING OUR MF PRESIDENT AND THE ICE OFFICIAL WHO SAID IF FROM AZ HE WOULD NOT PROSECUTE!)
If this solid law gets "struck down like a whore by her 1970's style pimp", I never wish evil on others, but I would make an exception and wish it on all Americans who don't support this law, they deserve it in my mind, and the judges that ruled to strike it down.
Why do you think the Justice Department chose to support the DOM with feelings instead of facts?
You have to remember that the Republicans PACKED the Justice Department for the last eight years with those of the same political ideation. Obama has been in office now for almost six months but the Justice Department still is over 3/4's hardline Republican. Obama is running into political sabotage from every department and agency that the Republicans have packed for the last 8 years. But, he refuses to blame the Republicans, he has class.
I am a former Republican(1971-2003) Independent.
If the Justice Department believes a law is unconstitutional.......Are they required to defend it?
No, because what is constitutional to one may not be constitutional to the other. The Justice Department should not defend laws which are country to human rights, but unfortunately Obama is trying to be all things to all people
Hope this helps
Besides Obama who else has used the Justice Department to prevent states from enforcing federal law?
Clinton (U.S. v. Virginia)
Clinton (U.S. v. Tennessee)
Clinton (U.S. v. Alaska)
Reagan (U.S. v. Maine)
Kennedy (U.S. v. Oregon)
Basically, type "U.S. v. *any state*" Into google and you'll see that they've been sued by the Federal Government over something at some point in time.
Does the Justice Department have to appeal all lawsuits which go against the government?
Being the representative of the "defendant" (US government), the Justice Dept. is obligated to appeal rulings, especially one where, although it's disagreeable, even to the President, the authority of the Executive branch, over the military is being questioned. It has to be appealed.
Obama says he and the Justice Department will no longer prosecute violations of Defense of Marriage Act?
Hmmmm - - - Obama saying not to spend resources to persecute er ah prosecute people for the act of marriage, BAD< way BAD -- -
Cheney/Bush demanding that people be tortured, their phones and computers 'tapped,' that people be held in indefinite captivity without charges, GOOD--
This is truly a strange country. ALL PRESIDENTS throughout history have the duty to give their Attorney General directions as to what are priorities in the way of justice from John Adams having to deal with French nationals during the early days of the French Revolution through how to deal with runaway 'slaves' to the the 'threat of anarchist and socialist' at the time of World War One and so on and so on.
Al that President Obama has said, in essence, is that rsources are best spent elsewhere, that it is best to turn a blind eye when someone files a lawsuit against their neighbor for living in sin in violation of the 'law' that says they are not a couple etc and etc.