This seems hyperbolic - but I can really only remember obama's presidency for comparison, and I'm not quite educated on the actions of past administrations.
Is there a way to compare past administrations' actions with the current's without relying on others, so I can reliably evaluate claims like this while still being a relative layman?
No, the AG is supposed to warn when the president steps into legal trouble, whether he wants to hear it or not.
The president of the US is not
like the proprietor or CEO of a business. The people
who work in the executive branch are obligated to the whole country, not to him.
The AG takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution etc. - there is no promise to obey the president. This AG
said she doubted the executive order was lawful, so it was her duty to point that out.
4 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 8.8 ms ] threadIs there a way to compare past administrations' actions with the current's without relying on others, so I can reliably evaluate claims like this while still being a relative layman?
The president of the US is not like the proprietor or CEO of a business. The people who work in the executive branch are obligated to the whole country, not to him. The AG takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution etc. - there is no promise to obey the president. This AG said she doubted the executive order was lawful, so it was her duty to point that out.