Eric Holder Was Correct on D.C. Voting Rights and the Office of Legal Counsel
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
The news that Attorney General Eric Holder sought other advice regarding the D.C. voting rights bill after his Office of Legal Counsel said the bill was not constitutional brings mixed feelings. On one hand, the notion of the AG taking such an unusual step is disturbing. On the other, I want the bill to pass and clear the constitutional barrier.
It may not be constitutional, but the Office of Legal Counsel is, the last time I checked, not the ultimate arbiter on that score, which is why I'm not ready to throw Holder under the bus as being a Bush-like politicizer of Justice. (That and his exoneration of Ted Stevens.)
Marc Ambinder has a smart post delineating the differences between the Holder DOJ and Bush DOJ. And I would add two things: First, there is a difference between, on the one hand, listening to OLC advice and ignoring it, and, on the other hand, pressuring the OLC to reach specific conclusions in the first place (thus obviating the need to find other advice). One way acknowledges differences of opinion, the other attempts to quash them. It's a small difference, but not an unimportant one.
Second, as I said above, the OLC is not the Supreme Court. Its opinions are not legally binding and it works for the attorney general—not vice versa. He knows the law as well, and in a case that really is not clear cut either way (the American Bar Association and conservative luminaries say it passes constitutional muster, the Congressional Research Service and the OLC say it doesn't), it's his prerogative to seek other counsel.
If the bill passes, the Supreme Court will get its crack at it, and Holder won't be able to ignore the justices—and that's the way the system should work.
On Facebook? You can keep up with Thomas Jefferson Street blog postings through Facebook's Networked Blogs.
- Read more by Robert Schlesinger.
- Read more from the Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
- Read more about Washington, D.C.
Tags: voting | Washington, DC | Eric Holder
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (3) | Print
Reader Comments
THE CONSTITUTION - READ IT - OBEY IT
The leftist power machine in Washington has decided to take away a provision of our Constitution - Art. 1, sec. 2 which clearly says States have the right to representatives in the House. States, not districts, not possessions, just States.
If they get away with eliminating this provision, which one will they take away from us next? Americans should be very concerned about losing any part of our Constitution without a fight. Those who vote for this bill should be impeached.
Why Do You Think the OLC Was Pressured by the White House?
Why do you think Bush pressured the OLC? Why would he have to? The head of the OLC is a political appointee, and John Yoo, the lower-down lawyer who wrote the memo, had an expansive view of executive power without needing pressure. I've never heard that the White House used promises or threats with them.
The opposition to the torture memo was from, I gather, some of the civil service attorneys at the OLC. I don't see why their opinions should get higher weight than that of a Berkeley professor on leave in their office.
Just rename it
Given this administrations penchant for NEWSPEAK vocabulary, I don't see why they don't just rename the Voting Rights bill to FREEDOM ACT FOR AMERICANS and allow district residents to wherever they please/whenevr they please. With no deadlines or boundaries, residents could vote for any president or senator past or present. After all, EVERY VOTE MUST COUNT.
advertisement
