Civic norms in our nation seem to be unraveling. Some citizens and legislators made a concerted effort to delegitimize President Obama by making frivolous claims about his place of birth. Today, other citizens and legislators attempt to delegitimize President Trump by making frivolous claims that his failure to win the popular vote or Russia’s hacking somehow reverses the legal verdict of a presidential election.
The refusal of the holdover Acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, is another troubling step in our the dissolution of our norms. It is a sad matter when citizens and legislators flout them. But it may be of greater concern when executive branch officials do so, particularly when they run the Department of Justice as holdovers in the delicate transition period.
The Department of Justice defends legislation and presidential actions if there is a reasonable basis in law to do so. No Attorney General has ever taken the position that he will defend such actions only if he is confident that they are legal and only if he believes they are just. For good reason.
Federal law (the Controlled Substances Act) prohibits the possession, use, sale etc. of marijuana. What to do about state laws, such as Colorado’s, that not only permit but affirmatively license (and regulate) this commerce? For an instructive discussion of the legal problems, see this debate, co-sponsored by the Federalist Society and the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Law School (headed by the excellent Jonathan Adler, who organized and moderated the event). Most conservatives, myself included, find this difficult. On one hand, why shouldn’t states be allowed to have their own laws on marijuana, just as they do…
The much-ballyhooed $13 billion settlement between the Department of Justice and J.P. Morgan looks like an EU Treaty: pages of burble, plus various annexes. DoJ press release with full text etc. here. As near as I can tell, JPM admits to having had sex in a federally sponsored whorehouse—with private parties, government parties, and parties in between (Freddie and Fannie). JPM’s partners had no idea what was happening to them; they innocently relied on JPM’s assurances that the firm was at all times wearing its due diligence condom. I express no view on the merits (except that in my book they’re all guilty and deserve what’s happened to them). Two questions, though: