Talk:United States Attorney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help!

1 "Discretion"
2 Merge with Executive Office for United States Attorneys
3 Removal of U.S. Attorneys
4 The U.S. Senate cannot "repeal" a statute by itself
5 American Samoa

[edit] "Discretion"

It's true that the term "discretion" means, in this context, that the President can fire a U.S. Attorney at any time. I'm concerned, though, that not every reader will realize this legal implication, especially in light of the statement that the U.S. Attorney seves for a four-year term (which could be misunderstood as a fixed term). For that reason, we should expressly state the President's removal power. JamesMLane t c 11:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Executive Office for United States Attorneys

I suggest merging Executive Office for United States Attorneys into this article. There is hardly anything in that article, but it would provide good information for the hirearchy of U.S. Attorneys & their place in the federal government.--Wikiphilia 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The EOUSA article should be merged with the USAO article. The EOUSA's primary focus is administrating the USAO.

129.74.146.158 18:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Gina

Yes, just go ahead and do it. Terjen 08:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge accomplished: Executive Office for United States Attorneys now redirects to here, United States Attorney -- Yellowdesk 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of U.S. Attorneys

I have read a lot of controversy over the firing of 8 US Attorneys by President Bush and I have also read that President Clinton fired all 93 of them.

My question is: what is the normal proceedure for changing the USA's? Did President Bush fire all 93 of them when he took office? If not, how long di Clinton holdovers remain in office? What about Presidents before Clinton? How did they handle changing the US attorneys?206.212.89.240 14:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ANSWER: Yes, Clinton fired all 93. However, the ones that were fired by the Bush admin now were attorneys that had ALREADY been put in place by Bush - it is claimed now that he apparently only realized now that they do not function the way he hoped they would and that's why he had them fired now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.85.181.25 (talk • contribs). (15 March 2007)

Dear readers: I added information on removal of US Attorneys (accidentally edited without an explanation in the edit box. By law, U.S. Attorneys may be removed by the President. In other words, they serve at the pleasure of the President. However, the question raised is what is the normal procedure for changing U.S. Attorneys. For that, I don't have an answer at this moment. Yours, Famspear 14:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy -- Yellowdesk 02:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This subject seems unnecessarily confused. Some other wikipedia articles show timelines (who came before, who came after), that would help here. These positions are plums, and are always used to reward up-and-coming loyalists. Every President uses their authority to appoint all 93 attorneys upon taking office. Clinton did this in 1993 in one week (the "firings"), Bush took about 2 months in 2001. By now (march-end 2007, Bush has appointed a total of 123 USA (LA times; 93 plus various replacements). Since talk radio likes to indicate that only Clinton did this, I checked, by going thru the list of USA websites in the wikipedia article. This was ludicrously slow, isn't this stuff tabulated anywhere?! The USA's really, really need web-site help (unless they are trying to be secretive - from some of those sites it is difficult to learn that the USA even has a name). I could find no USA that did not start after 2001 - mostly march-april of that year, a few later, but these replacing another Bush-appointee. Reagan fired 78 at his start (LA times) - apparently some senators (pat moynihan was example) asked for a favorite to stay on. One funny thing in LA times article was that Bush apparently did not know that he had fired the original 93 that he inherited, this latter fact from one of the Attorney General's prolix e-mailers.

    This whole system is readily fixed: randomly designate each of the current appointees into group 1-5, each gets the balance of a five year term (i.e. 1-5 years).  Thus every year, the current President appoints one-fifth of the USA for new five year terms, using normal political favor guidelines, and subject to senate confirmation.  No firings except for impeachment of that attorney.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherrywood (talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The U.S. Senate cannot "repeal" a statute by itself

An anon has been adding material to the article to the effect that the U.S. Senate repealed or rescinded a particular provision of a statute. That is incorrect. Repeals or any other amendments to statutes must be done by the full Congress (both houses) as as an Act of Congress, and then presented to the President. If the President vetoes, then the Act can become law without his signature if the full Congress overrides the veto. The anon claims that the "repeal" occurred yesterday, March 20, 2007. I see nothing in the news or anywhere else that would support the statement that the U.S. Senate unilaterally repealed or rescinded a statute. Yours, Famspear 18:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: You could say, however, that the Senate passed a bill or joint resolution to repeal a statute (if such were the case). However, that would be an Act of the Senate only. It would have no legal effect until sent to the House of Representatives, passed by the House, presented to the President, etc., etc. There is a process as outlined in the Constitution.

Also, perhaps the anonymous editor might have read something about a Senate committee voting to repeal something (possibly??). If that's the case, vote by a Senate committee would not be the passage of a repealing bill or joint resolution by the U.S. Senate.

I don't know what the anonymous editor was referring to, though. Yours, Famspear 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I located what appears to be the correct description of what happened -- in another Wikipedia article. I have added it to this article, with the citation to the New York Times story, and I have added some clarification language. I don't know whether the House of Representatives had already passed the proposal (i.e., where did it originate?) or, alternatively whether it now needs to go to the House for consideration. In any case, there is no repeal of a statute until and unless both houses pass it and the President signs it into law or it becomes law without his signature (e.g., by his failure to timely act, or by veto override in the Congress). Yours, Famspear 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)