First, I want to apologize to the Senators whose questions I have not yet answered. My focus for much of the week was on preparing for a trial which was set to begin this morning. I will try to get to the questions still outstanding today.
I hope my distinguished friends in the Senate, will allow a former Senator, and current Justice to ask some general questions, that I've asked to various nominees before, because you can never have too many questions.
1.) Will you be willing, and more active than your predecessors in both challenging legislation at both Federal, and regional level when it clearly has elements that could be unconstitutional? One of my greatest gripes (and one I should have acted on more before my days as a Justice) was that we don't seem to challenge Laws anymore in Atlasia.
2.) In the last administration, Attorney General Oakvale prosecuted Speaker Ninja with crimes involving thread deletions, despite the opposition of a lot of people. (and possibly the President) If you believed someone had committed a crime would you prosecute them, even if the President and other officials opposed the action?
3.) To the above, if you believed a law was unconstitutional would you file a suit against it, even if the President and other officials disagreed?
You've definitely raised interesting issues here. While I don't think you will like them, I believe the answers are clear the way the law is written.
While some offices can perhaps claim broader authority through creation by the legislature, the current position of Attorney General was created by presidential fiat last year. The role of the Attorney General was set out by an immediately following executive order. Namely:
There has been no change to the Attorney General's authority since then. As that is the limit of the office's legal mandate, I would very strongly hesitate to go beyond it. It isn't a good look for the Attorney General to ignore the law! So, with the background out of the way, to answer your questions in order:
1. While I will certainly do what I can with regional issues that are preempted by Federal action, I do not believe the Attorney General currently has the authority to challenge Federal law. If that authority should change, I would change how I acted. Also, while it wouldn't be necessarily "challenging the law" I see no problem with informing the President and the legislature that I believe a bill they are considering would be unconstitutional and would be successfully challenged if passed. I do intend to act in that advisory role where possible.
2. Absolutely. I would assume that I was nominated for this post to actually fulfill the position's obligations. If people are upset that the Attorney General is enforcing an unpopular law, I would suggest that their energy be directed at changing the law. Laws often seem stupid and create unintended consequences, but that should be an issue for their representatives to handle, not for the Justice Department to dance around.
3. For the reasons stated in #1, no. Disapproval on the part of the President or other officials need not enter the equation. I do not believe the Attorney General currently has the authority to file suit against an unconstitutional law. I might do so as a private citizen if the law was egregious enough, but not in an official capacity. Assuming I did have that power, as I said before, I would follow the requirements of the law, not the whims of the President. If the President disagreed with my behavior, he would of course have the authority to dismiss me or change the authority of my office.
