Rogue Attorneys General are clear and present danger to rule of law

Attorneys General Eric Holder and Mark Herring: Rogue birds of a feather

WASHINGTON, March 10, 2014 – Newly elected Virginia attorney general Mark R. Herring announced that he will not defend Virginia’s constitutional amendment codifying the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.  Furthermore, he says he will actively work to defeat the law he is sworn to uphold.

Herring says he is justified based on a recent US Supreme Court ruling but that claim is false.

“I have now concluded that Virginia’s ban on marriage between same sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” said Herring according to the Washington Post.

Neither the US Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that has jurisdiction over Virginia has ruled on the constitutionality of Virginia’s marriage amendment, so there is no legal basis for Herring’s assertion.

By these actions, Herring has effectively renounced his sworn oath of office to defend the Constitution. Furthermore, Herring has intentionally committed malpractice in defending his client—the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia—and should be disbarred from practicing law.

Herring is not a judge, yet he proposes that he unilaterally can decide that his state constitution is unconstitutional. Herring is not a legislator, yet he proposes that his office has the power to annul the will of the legislative branch.

Herring is Virginia’s top law enforcement official, yet he proposes to join litigation to overturn the very Constitution he swore to defend.

Herring joins  other rogue state attorneys general—Democrats from California, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Oregon—who put their political preferences for homosexual marriage above their oath of office and the constitutional power of the people residing in the legislative and judicial branches of government.

The case of California demonstrates the looming threat to democratic government.  Simply by refusing to defend a law duly enacted by the people, the state government disenfranchised  seven million, 52 percent, of California voters.

Referendum supporters took on the duty of defending their California constitutional amendment all way to the US Supreme Court.  But, the court dismissed the case in Hollingsworth v. Perry ruling only the state (of California) had standing (the legal vested interest) to defend its own laws.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. . . . We decline to do so for the first time here.”

No, the court did not declare a constitutional right to gay marriage.  The court only said that California citizens who voted to keep marriage defined as one man and one women in 2008 did not have the legal right to defend the law in the federal courts if the state would not.

In essence, the democrat California attorney general conspired with two gay plaintiffs to trump the vote of seven million Californians.

The implications of lawless attorneys general and this ruling are far reaching:  Any ballot measure passed by state voters can be rendered moot simply by an attorney general announcing that the state will not defend the law in court.  This encourages a private party to sue knowing they will overturn the law by default.  About half the states allow for citizen referendums.

Most disturbing is that President Obama and US Attorney General Eric Holder are participating in and cheerleading this legal anarchy.

Congress overwhelming passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.  US Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Congressional leadership in 2011.  He wrote, “the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), 1 U.S.C. § 7, as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.”

The judiciary, not the executive branch, determines the constitutionality of law.  Yet, the Obama administration announced it would not defend DOMA because Obama decided it was not constitutional.  Constitutional checks and balances be damned.

Now, according to the New York Times, US attorney general Eric Holder says “that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that they believe are discriminatory.”  Holder has no legal authority to declare that  an AG can appoint himself as judge and jury if it advances so called “gay rights.”

This is extremely dangerous.  Since the Department of Justice is responsible for enforcing and defending the law, and SCOTUS says the people have no standing to legally defend a law, it becomes impossible to argue that America remains a nation of laws.  Meanwhile, Holder’s DOJ simultaneously argues in court that enumerated rights under the First Amendment do not apply to Christians who practice their faith by resisting financial support for contraception and abortion under HHS mandates.

As San Francisco mayor, now California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, told Proposition 8 advocates during the referendum fight, gay marriage would happen, “whether you like it or not.”

Apparently so–at least with attorneys general that are unfit for office and who are a clear and present danger to the rule of law.


Paul Rondeau is an independent social commentator and president of Synapse Associates, a conservative communication, training, and consulting firm.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • moose

    Seems a LOT of people don’t believe in their oath of office. When they break their oath, they should be removed from office…..PERIOD

  • William Fuzi

    we now live in a country of men, and not laws.

  • Eileen Wright

    The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage; nothing. Rogue courts and judges have expanded it to their own way of ideological thinking.

  • jimmyrourke

    It goes right along with Obama and his Lawless Administration. They are sworn to defend the Constitution and they do a 180 and ignore it. Holder is going to end up in jail

  • Bruce

    REMOVE IMMEDIATELY! That goes with people’s rights too!

  • Lola in SC

    Truly, does anyone still think that an oath means anything to a liberal, since when have they cared anything about ethics? For children of Satan, the Holy Bible and “bearing false witness” mean nothing to them and as Jesus warned, the children of Satan speak the language of their true father, the father of lies, and lying is his their native tongue.

  • Nanaof3kids

    The 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage. ” The United States nor any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Nowhere does it say a attorney general has the constitutional right to change a law he doesn’t want to uphold because of personal opinion. We have a constitution for that very reason. Otherwise we would have no rule of law only elected officials doing whatever they felt like at the moment. When they take an oath of office to uphold the laws of the state and the constitution and they decide not to do that they should be removed from office immediately. We have allowed our current president and attorney general to do that very thing and now they are all going to think they can do as they please because they are above the law. This has to stop or we are all doomed to a country of dictatorial people in office with no boundries..

    • ClarenceAlexander

      You have accurately deduced the whole purpose of what is going on with this administration. Why? I have no idea why the laws of this country are under attack. I do not care one way or the other about the marriage thing; but I do care that an Atty General is going to work to change a law — doubt that’s one of his duties to perform!! But we have a president that is actively breaking the law by changing laws unilaterally and NO ONE is holding him responsible.

  • val

    These are elected officials. They are as much expression of the will of the people as the laws that you want to defend. They will respond to the electorate of their actions. In California the electorate voted for a governor and SA that pledged they wouldn’t defend proposition 8 and refused to elect officials that made the opposite promise.

    • ClarenceAlexander

      It’s one thing to run on such promises and another to make the bold change after getting elected!

  • Barbara

    “If we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom…millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.” is the warning from Samuel Adams. Such an activist and deliberate attack on the laws an attorney general has sworn to uphold turns our civil society upside down and calls for immediate action by the people whose rights are destroyed.

  • Jeffrey Olah

    what about the 10th amendment

  • jwdent .

    I agree with him. And I KNOW right wing religious extremists will disagree with me….’AND CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION…(this would also apply to religious BELIEF in what constitutes a marriage (union) So..quoting BIBLE or some other RELiGIOUS doctrine is NOT the validating principle…And to insist that it is, then next year some OTHER religious group will be pressing for the law to reflect their view of marriage….Why the push? Because by virtue of the way the law is written now, certain TAX and SOCIAL PRIVILEGE is and always has been afforded those who PAY THEIR GOVERNMENT DUES and are as a result considered married. If the law can not be applied equally to ALL PEOPLES and ALL VIEW POINTS then the law itself is INVALID. In fact according to the constitution the law is ILLEGAL….Changing this in this day and age is no more improper than changing the laws that barred women from voting, or those that allowed for the ownership of slaves. The LAW must apply equally to all citizens of all faiths and all beliefs or NONE. including Born Again Christianity which in and of itself is little or nothing more that a dogma and doctrine based upon mis-understanding and mis teaching. If a specific RELIGION chooses to recognize specific doctrine then they are WITHIN their rights under the rule of law to do so from withing the confines of their religious order. However there is no constitutional right to inflict said belief on the rest of the populace to the exclusion of all others…BELIEFS and PREFERENCES be damned. The problem with this issue is that for decades people have been conditioned to believe that the LICENSING by the government constitutes marriages and it is that premise in and of itself which steers individuals away from the true nature of spiritual and emotional union. The former does not create the later.

    • Untwisted Truth

      You set up a straw man argument about religion that is irrelevant. But since you mention it, people of faith have every right to vote and help shape the laws of society, too. Your attack on religion has nothing to do with the constitutionally defined separation of powers. Your argument is fatally flawed: the purpose of all laws is to discriminate between behaviors that society finds beneficial or harmful. It’s everyones right to an opinion but only judges, not AGs, have the right to rule on the validity and application of law.

      • Guest

        Actually it is your argument that is TWISTED…and if there is a Straw man argument it is yours. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION..So if there is a law or attempt to pass a law and the premise of the law is based upon the DOGMA or DICTATE of specific RELIGIOUS BELIEF…and EXCLUDES the belief of other RELIGIONS then that law is invalid and NOT ALLOWED under the Constitution of the United States of America…bias, preference and attempt to regulate behavior of all others to the exclusion of other beliefs IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT with that part of the constitution…You and others can TWIST SPIN and word smith all you want…TRUTH is many don’t ascribe to religious dogma at all…So why don’t you explain how a GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE (ALL PEOPLE) by the PEOPLE (does that just apply to some people and their views? and if so BY WHAT right of passage?) and FOR THE PEOPLE (again is that ALL people or simply those who want to IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS of a RELIGIOUS NATURE) on others. If the law gives preference i.e. tax advantages and perks, and special dispensation to ONLY one view point and that viewpoint is based upon RELIGIOUS BELIEF and in so doing excludes the practices and beliefs of others then THAT LAW IS ILLEGAL AND NOT ALLOWED BY THE VERY CONSTITUTION OF THIS NATION…Period. The solution here is that should a religious sect decide certain doctrine should be followed and honored so be it but the mandate and practice is and should be limited to THAT SECT not mandated for the entire society…THIS NONSENSE is why we had a revolution in the first place. So the ONLY viable solution to this is to REGISTER ALL unions regardless for the purposes of TAXATION, Social Standing, and Legal Representation all on the same standing and ground. Anything else is BY ITS VERY NATURE DISCRIMINATORY..and the Legislators of this country have NEVER had legal standing to parse out law on that basis. That is has happened is a fact. That it is in keeping with the RULE OF LAW of this nation and when said rule of law is being violated then said ILLEGAL LAWS must be undone..PERIOD. To continue to keep invalid laws such as this on the books is to open the door for every other group who wants to push their particular DOGMA into the public arena as LAW for all…I.e. No mixed unions. No mixed neighborhoods. No wearing skirts above the ankles. No electricity..(i.e. some of the more isolated religious practices..and it could go on and on and the debates in the public arena could rage for years. YOURS, MINE or someone else’s DO NOT TRUMP anybody else….REGARDLESS of the emotional angst therein..THAT WAS AND STILL IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The problem with this issue is that “the government got into the business of LICENSING MARRIAGES in the first place…..THAT IN TRUTH IS A MATTER FOR EACH AND EVERY RELIGION TO DECIDE and no one religion decides for all. Heck bud I have been to ceremonies where all anyone had to do was literally JUMP OVER A STICK. and they were considered married. ONE group, ONE particular practice is not allowed by the RULE OF LAW OF THIS NATION to impose their views on everybody else. PERIOD. That friend is NOT a straw man argument it is a LITERAL FACT…That some don’t like it doesn’t change that truth…and the kind of spin and double talk that is put out there to try to mask that basic foundation is nothing but pseudoi-intellectual manipulation.

    • Sean O’Hara

      ” If the law can not be applied equally to ALL PEOPLES and ALL VIEW POINTS then the law itself is INVALID.” That statement is one of the more idiotic I’ve heard recently about gay marriage. So what you’re saying is that if within MY VIEWPOINT it’s permissible to sacrifice the children of my neighbor as a “specific doctrine” of my religion, that should be legal since to hold the practice illegal does not apply the law against murder equally to “ALL PEOPLES and VIEW POINTS” and would violate the establishment clause. Do you realize how absurd your position is? Do you mean to say that any law that interferes with what you want to do is invalid because it is somehow not applied equally?

      Gays always had the same rights as everyone else to marry. Now, they have special rights in some states and according to the central government. The current majority of states having laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman are applying the law equally to everyone of every view. Applied equally doesn’t mean all behavior is condoned; laws discriminate based upon society’s collective experience that some behaviors are useful, some are neutral, and some are destructive. Therefore, while at some time society has condoned polygamy, we do not now because we’ve discovered through experience that it is generally inconsistent with the personal rights of women; it is not useful any longer.

  • Larry Foster

    I believe he has a right to try to change any law he thinks is wrong just like we all do but until that law is changed he needs to enforce it.

    • Tom Winegar

      As long as he doesn’t use his job as a platform for change and waits until he is back to being a private citizen before acting out.

  • GA Patriot

    Vote for Democrats, win stupid prizes.

  • Paulita Gilberto


  • guy r west

    that should insuire prison for them but that i doubt

  • Lawrence Little

    Two of the biggest fools ever to have had the privileged of being called “Americans”.

  • falling321

    I wonder if VA has a recall process for people like this man….if so, we need to get started today!

  • Poor_Richard

    He must think he was elected King instead of just a measly old State Attorney General. Where do they come up with these ignorant cretins that know absolutely nothing of the Constitution or at the very least have no respect for the rule of law. He should be reported to the Bar Association for his lawless conduct and have him disbarred. It is obvious he has violated the tenets.

  • Tom Winegar

    Sissy, crybaby Democrats simply won’t be told no, the party has always been occupied by liars, racists and thieves so what a surprise that the hippie’s from the ’60’s all became Commiecrats. When the highest law enforcement officer in state government violates the law he or she should be made an example of and fired as well as forever barred from holding any public office again. It’s time for the citizens to remove these scum from office one way or another.