Assistant Atty General issues opinion saying the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional

[thewayne]

Here's a bit of irony. President 45 claimed the PRA as a defense for him keeping records to himself at the end of his first term, now he's got someone in the 'Justice' Dept to say that the law is unconstitutional. Now, the beauty of this is they're not filing a lawsuit in court challenging the law to get it overturned, they're just claiming it's not valid and therefore we're not going to follow it, neener neener.

Pretty clever way of trying to dodge that particular law, scumbags that they are.

The PRA was voted into law in 1978, four years after Richard 'Tricky Dick' Nixon resigned from office in the wake of the Watergate Scandal. The argument that this AAG is making is actually kind of humorous: "The PRA is not a valid exercise of Congress's Article I authority and unconstitutionally intrudes on the independence and autonomy of the President guaranteed by Article II," he found. "The Act establishes a permanent and burdensome regime of congressional regulation of the Presidency untethered from any valid and identifiable legislative purpose.". Funny how the eight presidents since Nixon, including four other Republicans, didn't seem to find it too terribly burdensome.

There's a basic flaw here, in my non-legal opinion. The Constitution and Bill of Rights (which is part of the Constitution) seemingly has always been interpreted sequentially. Amendment 1 (Freedom of Speech) prevails over subsequent Amendments in most cases. Seems to me that Article I authority should prevail over Article II authority: checks and balances.

But IANAL, much less a constitutional attorney. I don't know how people would go about challenging an opinion issued out of the blue. I thought that normally opinions were issued relevant to court cases, in support of one side or the other, or to illustrate a point of law. This opinion is just thrown out there: 'Not gonna do it!' If a case is in front of the SCOTUS and the Justice Dept issues an opinion, then others, such as the ACLU or EFF, can file an amicus brief with a counter-opinion saying 'The Justice Dept's opinion is full of crap and here's the reasons why'.

But what do they do when the opinion is just floated out there without it being attached to a specific case? It's just 'HEY! This is what we now believe!'

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-presidential-records-act-unconstitutional/

Comments

[ionelv]

I think the AAG’s proclamation is more cynical than that: the only party that has court standing to challenge that interpretation is Congress and given that Congress has been fiddling while Rome is getting burnt to the ground by Orange Julius Cacatus, tough noogies challenging it.

[warriorsavant]

IANAL, although I used to watch Law and Order regularly.

You're right in that courts only rule on a specific case. (Although a statement of opinion, in absence of a specific case.) In which case, one of these entities can file a suit, although there has to be something to file suit about. FOI case?

Anyhow, it's not as if the Orange Senility actually cares about law, court opinions, the constitution, or anything else.

BTW: speaking of court rulings, it seems to me that the Conversion Therapy ruling opens the door to teachers being able to talk about Gay People to kindergarteners, Doctors being able to talk about Abortion, etc. They just handed their enemies a massive weapon.

[disneydream06]

I thought that normally opinions were issued relevant to court cases, in support of one side or the other, or to illustrate a point of law.
But see, you used the word "Normally".
There is nothing Normal about this Regime. :o
Hugs, Jon

[thewayne]

I suppose the ACLU and others can still issue opinions, but they'll still hold about as much weight.  It'll still be a matter of seeing if the Dems can take 2/3rds to 3/4ths control of both Houses come November - assuming we have elections in November and they can be sworn in come January.

[thewayne]

IANAL, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.  Yeah, it would appear that the ruling may turn out to be a major double-edged sword.  It will be very interesting to see what comes of it.

[thewayne]

When 45 was inaugurated the first time, Normal went out for a pack of smokes and hasn't been seen again.

[disneydream06]

With that family it's more like they went out for a "line". lol........

[silveradept]

The Executive is charged with faithfully executing the laws, which means, presumably, that someone should be able to challenge this interpretation as not following the laws. Not that you could be certain this particular SCOTUS would rule in favor of "follow the law, asshole, even when it makes you look bad or keep records you don't want to," but someone other than Congress surely has standing to make the person issuing this statement eat their words.