Obama Administration

Questions for Loretta Lynch About the Role of Law Enforcement in Our Lives

It is time for a national debate, and the confirmation hearings on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to become attorney general can provide an excellent platform.

|

United States Mission Geneva/Flickr

Within hours of realizing that his party lost control of the U.S. Senate last week, President Obama nominated Loretta Lynch, the chief federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, N.Y., and an outstanding and apolitical professional, to be the next attorney general. The current attorney general, Eric Holder, resigned last month.

Lynch is sure to be confirmed by either the present Democratic-controlled Senate this fall or by the newly constituted Republican-controlled Senate early next year—and she should be. But the process of confirming her should capture the interest of all Americans concerned about the loss of personal freedoms in our present-day Orwellian world in which the Obama administration has killed innocent Americans, spied on trillions of conversations and emails without probable cause, and declined to enforce laws with which it disagrees. Republican senators have a duty to ask her probing questions.

Is this just inside-the-Beltway stuff, or should you care who is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land? You should care, and here is why. When the United States was founded, the essence of the government was the diffusion of power between the states and the federal government. At the outset, state attorneys general were the engines that drove law enforcement, as the U.S. attorney general was involved exclusively with governmental relations between the states and the feds and protecting federal interests—which included federal property and federal currency. The job came with a small office and a handful of remotely venued prosecutors. The states checked federal law enforcement excess by not cooperating with it or even judicially invalidating it.

Today, the opposite is the case. When the feds want something, they bully the states aside, and when the feds get away with something, the states will soon follow. Today, the states are powerless to check federal excess, and so Attorney General Holder became President Obama's enabler in some of the most egregious violations of the natural law, the Constitution, and federal law in modern American history. Today, the attorney general—often called "General" by law enforcement—commands an army of 90,000 lawyers, FBI agents, investigators, clerks, pilots, even troops. There are currently in excess of 4,000 federal criminal statutes for her to enforce, and she sets the tone for law enforcement throughout the country.

Hence, I suggest to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that they permit Lynch to distinguish herself from Holder by inducing her to answer the following questions:

  • Will you advise the president, as Holder did, that his careful, secret, conscientious deliberations about the legal guilt of some Americans are a constitutionally adequate substitute for due process, such that he can kill uncharged, untried, unsentenced Americans?
  • Do you defend the president's killing two innocent American children, as Holder did?
  • Will you advise the president that he can use his prosecutorial discretion in such a manner that American borders become open as they did for Central American children last summer, and that foreign nationals who are here illegally can legally remain here without complying with the laws Congress has written?
  • Will you tell the president that the NSA can disregard the Constitution and execute general warrants, which permit the bearer to search wherever he wishes and seize whatever he finds, even though the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent general warrants?
  • Can the president decline to enforce laws with which he disagrees without violating his oath to enforce federal laws faithfully?
  • Will you advise the president that he can subpoena the home telephone records and the personal email accounts of Associated Press and Fox News reporters, as Holder did?
  • Will you permit state and local police and the IRS to seize the property of known innocents who have not been charged with criminal behavior, much less convicted of it, and then retain much of the seized property even if the persons from whom it was seized are acquitted?
  • Will you permit law enforcement to break the law in order to enforce it?
  • Will you condone law enforcement using tanks and battering rams to deliver subpoenas?
  • Will you permit law enforcement personnel to create crimes so that they can solve the crimes they created and then boast about the crimes they claim to have solved?
  • Do you accept the presumption of liberty, which means that the government must respect individual choices unless and until it can prove violations of the law to a judge or jury?

It is time for a national debate about the role of law enforcement in our lives, and the confirmation hearings on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to become attorney general can provide an excellent platform. If she agrees that the Constitution is not a neutral instrument as between the people and the government because it was written to keep the government off our backs, she will be an antidote to Obama's law breaking.

But I think I may be wishing for too much. She is, after all, his nominee.

NEXT: Brickbat: Solid Allies

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Andrew Napolitano Has Questions…

    For once, they’re not directed at us!

    1. Beat me to it! My comment was going to be: “Stop right there.”

      1. I was going to ask, “When is that not the case?”

  2. They can ask any questions they want, she is just going to lie like the rest of the Obama operatives.

  3. Lynch is sure to be confirmed by either the present Democratic-controlled Senate this fall or by the newly constituted Republican-controlled Senate early next year?and she should be.

    Absolutely. Nothing says justice like unchecked civil asset forfeiture.

  4. Some more questions for Holder’s successor – how far will she go to protect the Administration’s corporate pals?

    http://www.rollingstone.com/po…..s-20141106

    1. I’m going to guess – really, really far.

      1. Obama really needs a new scandal goalie.

        1. They just set the scandal cadence so high that they become “old news” within a week or two.

    2. Thanks for the article.

  5. Why should she be confirmed? She’s not as senior as most AGs and AG nominees, and she also has to overcome a strong presumption that she’ll suck, given Holder and more especially given Obama.

  6. The judge left out a question: “Are you now, or have you ever been, a coal miner’s daughter?”

    1. If she’s from New York originally, then probably not. There’s a lack of Coal Mines in the area.

  7. Holder became President Obama’s enabler in some of the most egregious violations of the natural law, the Constitution, and federal law in modern American history.

    “Will you prosecute your predecessor to the fullest extent of the law?”

  8. an outstanding and apolitical professional

    Huh. That’d be the opposite of my perception of her, given what I’ve been able to dig up so far.

    “Statist, authoritarian piece of shit that I don’t want in any position of power” was kind of where I am at this point.

    You enjoy it when she advises the President that it’s OK to drone your ass, after, of course, confiscating all your belongings because “they may be used to commit a crime”, Judge Nap.

    1. Given the candidate’s organizational memberships (past and present) I saw someone who held and overly racialized view of ‘justice’ and would be either Holder Redux or Holder Squared.

      1. “Given that Black Santa exists, where does he live?”

        1. Duh, on the equator, in Africa.

      2. Yep, what you said, UnCiv. Among other things.

        I trust no Obama appointee to be anything other than a complete, utter, fuck. So there’s also the damning by association.

  9. Does anyone think the Judge has ever waded, is now wading, or will ever wade into the comments?

  10. Have her spell backwards, forwards.

    1. Excellent.

      “You have ten minutes.”

  11. Don’t hold your breath. This is a perfect illustration of how elected representatives are little more than statists and full of shit.

  12. Her credentials and track record are irrelevant. You only need to know two things:
    Black
    Woman

    She’s a lock

    1. Harvard law,
      New York,

      You’d think no one else in the country was capable of being attorney general. And just why is this not an elected position? It really should be.

      Get on that House members – Constitutional amendment to make Attorney General position elected – (2 term max).

  13. “Questions for Loretta Lynch”

    1. Are you or are you not the white women that defended chief philanderer-in-chief William Jefferson Clinton?
    2. Just how many tons of explosives did the FBI-CIA-NSA pack into WTC7 to bring about the NWO?

  14. * Does the Attorney General have the power to direct the DEA to reschedule substances based on new information?

  15. Seriously, on what’s with the names of Obama’s AGs? “Holder” lends itself to parody the whole Gitmo thing and now “Lynch”? Who’s next the next candidate? Drew N. Quarter?

  16. She will be denied and the R’s will be called racists/sexists/etc.

    1. The R’s are so not racist that many of them think she’s actually a white woman from Arkansas.

  17. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  18. So the Senate should ask these questions of the Attorney General nominee. Then what? What will they do when they get the answers they want, answers that are pure unadulterated lies.

    They will simply confirm her anyway, the US Congress has well and truly shown itself to be completely and utterly useless … they can’t or won’t defend their OWN role in government, why would anyone think they care about defending the People.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.