PLAN 2025, THE GROWTH OF AUTHORITARIAN POWERS, A DOJ & FBI THAT ALLOW PREZ TO ELIMINATE ENEMIES WITH IMMUNITY --civics 4

Does Trump drain the swamp, or is he filling it?

Kash Patel's Support for Project 2025 and Its Impact on the Independence of the FBI and DOJ

Kash Patel, a staunch ally of former President Donald Trump, has been a vocal supporter of Project 2025. This initiative, led by the Heritage Foundation, aims to reshape the federal government with a conservative agenda. Patel's endorsement of the project aligns with his vision of radically transforming the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Patel's Vision for the FBI and DOJ

Patel has consistently advocated for significant changes within the FBI and DOJ. He has called for reducing the FBI's footprint, limiting its authority, and purging its ranks of employees who do not align with Trump's agenda. Patel's proposals include dismantling the FBI's intelligence-gathering activities and repurposing its headquarters as a museum of the "deep state "2. These radical changes reflect Patel's commitment to aligning federal law enforcement with a conservative political ideology.

Project 2025's Impact on the Independence of the FBI and DOJ

Project 2025 outlines a comprehensive plan to increase executive power and reduce the independence of federal agencies, including the FBI and DOJ. The project proposes reclassifying many federal civil service workers as political appointees to ensure loyalty to the president, which would undermine the traditional independence and impartiality of these agencies, making them more susceptible to political influence.

The plan also calls for a top-to-bottom overhaul of the DOJ, curbing its independence and ending the FBI's efforts to combat misinformation. By centralizing power within the executive branch, Project 2025 aims to transform the DOJ into an instrument for advancing a conservative agenda, potentially using lawful and unlawful means to target political adversaries3.

Conclusion

Kash Patel's support for Project 2025 and his vision for the FBI and DOJ represent a significant departure from the principles of independence and impartiality that have traditionally governed these institutions. By advancing executive powers and aligning federal law enforcement with a specific political ideology, Project 2025 threatens to disrupt the independence of the FBI and DOJ, undermining the rule of law and public trust in these critical institutions.

The Role of the Attorney General and Judicial Independence: A Comparative Analysis between the U.S. and Canada

Introduction

The Attorney General (AG) plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law and maintaining the integrity of the legal system in both the United States and Canada. While both countries share a common law heritage, their approaches to the independence of the AG and the relationship between law enforcement and the Department of Justice (DOJ) differ significantly. This essay explores the historical role of the AG, the principle of judicial independence, and the structural differences between the DOJ and police forces in the U.S. and Canada.

Historical Role of the Attorney General

The office of the Attorney General originated in medieval England, where the AG served as the monarch's legal advisor. Over time, this role evolved to include representing the Crown in legal matters and overseeing public prosecutions. The U.S. and Canada inherited this tradition, with the AG serving as the government's chief legal advisor and representing the state in legal matters. However, the approach to maintaining the AG's independence differs between the two countries.

Judicial Independence and the AG's Role

In both the U.S. and Canada, judicial independence and the independence of the AG are crucial for ensuring fair and impartial justice. The AG is expected to act as a quasi-judicial figure, making decisions based on the law and evidence, free from political influence. This principle is enshrined in Canada's Constitution Act of 1867 and upheld in critical U.S. cases such as?Marbury v. Madison (1803)?and?United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. (1888).

The Campbell Case (1924)

The Campbell Case in England in 1924 highlights the importance of AG independence. When the Labour government withdrew the prosecution of J.R. Campbell under political pressure, it led to a vote of no confidence and the government's fall. This case underscored the dangers of political interference in legal decisions and highlighted the need for the AG to act independently.

Differences between the U.S. and Canada

The U.S. and Canada have different structures regarding the relationship between the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operates under the DOJ's jurisdiction, with the AG overseeing the FBI's activities. This centralization coordinates the FBI's efforts with the DOJ's broader legal and policy objectives. However, this structure can lead to tensions, as seen in instances where political figures, such as former President Donald Trump and his nominee for FBI Director Kash Patel, have attempted to influence the DOJ and FBI for political ends.

In contrast, Canada clearly separates law enforcement and the DOJ. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is the federal police force enforcing federal laws. At the same time, the DOJ handles legal affairs, provides legal advice to the government, and prosecutes criminal cases. This separation ensures law enforcement operates independently of political influence, maintaining public trust in the justice system's impartiality.

Challenges and Contemporary Issues

Both countries face ongoing challenges to AG independence. In the U.S., recent actions by political figures have raised concerns about the erosion of this independence. For example, during the Watergate scandal, then-AG Elliot Richardson resigned rather than obey President Nixon's order to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox, highlighting the tension between executive power and the AG's duty to uphold the law impartially. More recently, former Attorney General William Barr faced criticism for perceived political alignment with President Trump, sparking debates about the DOJ's integrity.

In Canada, the AG's role has generally maintained a higher degree of separation from political influence, supported by institutional structures that prevent interference. However, the interplay between politics and the legal system remains a point of vigilance to ensure justice's continued impartiality and fairness.

Conclusion

The roles of the Attorney General and judicial independence are foundational to the legal systems in both the United States and Canada. While both countries share a common law heritage, their approaches to maintaining the AG's independence and the relationship between law enforcement and the DOJ differ significantly. The historical context, institutional structures, and contemporary challenges shape these differences, underscoring the importance of upholding the principles of impartiality and independence in the administration of justice.

TO BETTER UNSTND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS APPOINTMENT, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE

Harvard; APRIL 2020 The Law Policy ReviewThe Attorney General Should Be Separate

?

By Daniel Cotter*

The Office of the Attorney General was established in 1789 as part of?the Judiciary Act of 1789. Given the recent actions of the current Attorney General, William Barr, and the inherent conflicts we have seen in past administrations, we must revisit the Office'Office'sndence and location within the executive branch….An Attorney General accountable to the Preside President's Administration is a recipe for partisanship and protecting the president by acting as an independent law enforcement official who ensures the laws are faithfully executed.

The Judiciary Act of 1789

As noted, the Act established the Office of the Attorney General. Specifically,?Section 35 of the Act?provides:

Theret person, there in the lamenting all lamenting all, ed to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office. Office duty shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the PresidePresident the United States or when requested by the heads of any of the departments . . . .

However, the original drafts of the Act contemplated that the Supreme Court would appoint the Attorney General, as noted by Charles Warren in his Harvard Law Review article,?New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789……

.

States as Potential Models

As Tollen noted, "Forty-eight of our state governors cannot fire their AG at will, so they can't avoid justice through control of state prosecutors."?Forty-three states elect their attorney generals.

Attorney General William Barr and Lack of Independence

Attorney General William Barr is the latest example of why the position's independence is crucial. On?March 23, 2020, at President Trump's daily press conference, he was joined by Barr, who correctly addressed this issue. .….

Some presidents manage this independence better than others . . . . Donald Trump is not skillful at persuading, bargaining with, or leading his administration. . . . He acts like he doesn't care about the law and has no respect for the DOJ and FBI and their pursuits. When Trump acts this way, he makes it harder for the DOJ and FBI to accommodate him appropriately at the margins.

The Justice Manual . . . states that 'the rule of law depends on the evenhanded administration of justice'; that the legal decisions 'must be impartial and insulated from political influence'; and that the prosecutorial powers . . . must be 'exercised free from partisan consideration.'

. . .

. . . . Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.

……...

There is almost no precedent for an attorney general to give such partisan speeches."

The nation's top law enforcement officer and team must be independent. As the statement of the DOJ alumni notes, there must be an "evenhanded administration of justice." The DOJ's mission statement on its?website ends with this strong mantra: "to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."

Proposal and Conclusion

As we talked about, thdiscussedress, with knowledge of the government structure and closer to the time of the enabling legislation, proposed that the Supreme Court appoint the Attorney General. The final Judiciary Act of 1789 did not ascribe the role to any department. Today, we have witnessed an Attorney General who, time and time again, has shown his allegiance to the PresidePresident United States. Barr has been described as "the most political attorney general we've ever had."

We should help ensure that the Office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice they oversee are independent but accountable. We should follow the guidance of states such as Illinois and the wisdom our most excellent Chief Justice, John Marshall, gave us in?Marbury: "The Judicial Department emphatically has to say what the law is." The Attorney General should be part of the judicial branch.?

* Daniel Cotter is a lawyer practicing in Chicago. He is currently Co-Chair of the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter. He is a frequent writer on the Supreme Court and our judiciary, including on Twitter (@scotusbios) and as the author of the recently published book,?The Chief Justices?(Twelve Tables Press).

?

?