Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (34584)	4/3/2009 3:52:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

As jlallen pointed out the Justice department institutes important parts of a presidents agenda, since part of that agenda is ideas on legal interpretations and how laws should be enforced. Also if it was offically non-partisan, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have an agenda, only that it would have its own agenda (or perhaps competing agenda's from different factions) without a check of the people appointing the department's leaders being subject to the decisions of the voters. he roll and function of the DOJ should be expanded to include and focus on prosecuting the violations of persons elected to office especially federal office. It already includes that if they have violated federal law. Oaths of office should bind office holders in a way that a breach of oath becomes cause for criminal charge That might be unconstitutionally vague, since the oaths are rather general. The president's oath is "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." What constitutes faithfully executing the office, and supporting the constitution is to a large extent an area where there are political and ideological differences of opinion. The oath taken by other federal officials has the same sort of problem "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God. " Direct bribe taking can be (and sometimes is) tried under anti-corruption laws, no need to use "violating the oath of office" laws/prosecutions as well. Less direct forms of corruption should be handled by expanding the anti-corruption laws, or (particularly when the corruption is ambiguous or nebulous) just voting the people out of office. Another way to reduce corruption would be to reduce how much the government involves itself in to everything which would reduce both the incentive for and ability to act in corrupt ways. Accountability: There already exists some checks and balances. They are not supposed to create law or interpret law. Case adjudication is the natural path to accountability. We could add a clause that would be cause for removal or impeachment. Actually the justice department does interpret law, it just doesn't get final say on it. Case law wouldn't do much for the type of accountability I'm talking about. Deciding what and how to prosecute based on some internal political agenda, won't be something that will typically be addressed by courts except perhaps in extreme cases when you have prosecutorial misconduct. And what do you do if its not a political thing or something involving corruption, but just poor performance on the job. If the Attorney General is not controlled by the president, than who orders him to change or fires him?