Response to Original message. 5. He can be impeached as he was appointed by the President. The office of Attorney General is considered a "civil officer of government"..appointed by the President, in a cabinet level office, and thereby subject to impeachment. ALL cabinet level positions of the executive are subject to impeachment.
Under current Senate rules, an impeachment trial automatically begins with the transmission of the articles of impeachment to the Senate. To be removed from office, an official has to be convicted by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. 534 views View upvotes Answer requested by Vlad Vlasnyi Quora User , JD Law, University of Illinois (1990)
Impeaching Merrick Brian Garland, Attorney General of the United States, for civil and constitutional rights violations. Resolved, that Merrick Brian Garland, Attorney General of the United States, is impeached for civil and constitutional rights violations. In his conduct while Attorney General of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to …
Jan 28, 2014 · In virtually every state, the Attorney General can bring lawsuits for violations of state consumer protection or antitrust law. Often the Attorney General can seek both penalties and injunctive relief for itself and restitution for its citizens harmed by the defendant’s alleged wrongful actions. For defendants, these lawsuits often mean litigating a high stakes lawsuit […]
Attorneys General. While impeachment proceedings against cabinet secretaries is an exceedingly rare event, no office has provoked the ire of the House of Representatives than that of Attorney General. During the first fifth of the 21st century, no less than three Attorneys General have been subjected to the process.
The President of the United States has the authority to appoint U.S. Attorneys, with the consent of the United States Senate, and the President may remove U.S. Attorneys from office. In the event of a vacancy, the United States Attorney General is authorized to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney.
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The president has the authority to remove his appointees from office, but the heads of independent federal agencies can only be removed for cause.
Attorney General Powers and ResponsibilitiesIssuing formal opinions to state agencies.Acting as public advocates in areas such as child support enforcement, consumer protections, antitrust and utility regulation.Proposing legislation.Enforcing federal and state environmental laws.More items...
The U.S. attorney is appointed by the President of the United States for a term of four years, with appointments subject to confirmation by the Senate. A U.S. attorney continues in office, beyond the appointed term, until a successor is appointed and qualified.
It is also established that, in creating offices in the executive branch and in creating independent agencies, Congress has considerable discretion in statutorily limiting the power to remove of the President or another appointing authority.
The Constitution states that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." This means that the Justices hold office as long as they choose and can only be removed from office by impeachment.
The members of the Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president, who can dismiss them at any time without the approval of the Senate, as affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Myers v. United States (1926), or downgrade their Cabinet membership status.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.Oct 8, 2021
The change in the law undermined the confirmation authority of the Senate and gave the Attorney General greater appointment powers than the President, since the President's U.S. Attorney appointees are required to be confirmed by the Senate and those of the Attorney General did not require confirmation.
Attorney General Gonzales, in a confidential memorandum dated March 1, 2006, delegated authority to senior DOJ staff Monica Goodling and Kyle Sampson to hire and dismiss political appointees and some civil service positions.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that some of the emails that had involved official correspondence relating to the firing of attorneys may have been lost because they were conducted on Republican party accounts and not stored properly. "Some official e-mails have potentially been lost and that is a mistake the White House is aggressively working to correct." said Stanzel, a White House spokesman. Stonzel said that they could not rule out the possibility that some of the lost emails dealt with the firing of U.S. attorneys. For example, J. Scott Jennings, an aide to Karl Rove communicated with Justice Department officials "concerning the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released in March, 2007. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher."
On September 29, 2008 the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) released a report on the matter that found most of the firings were politically motivated and improper.
A subsequent report by the Justice Department Inspector General in October 2008 found that the process used to fire the first seven attorneys and two others dismissed around the same time was "arbitrary", "fundamentally flawed" and "raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecution decisions".
Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters.
In June 2008, a grand jury was empaneled to consider criminal indictments against officials involved in the firings. The grand jury was presented evidence from ongoing investigations at the Department of Justice Inspector General's office and at the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility.