Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« The politics of this should get interesting.... | Main | A problem with polling »

Fast and Furious: Holder moves to appeal ruling

Posted by David Hardy · 17 November 2013 10:06 AM

Story here. To translate from the legalese:

The trial court refused to dismiss the suit, seeking records, brought by Issa's committee. Holder's attorneys had objected on grounds of Executive Privilege, which traditionally shields documents giving advice rather than revealing facts. "This is why we should run guns to Mexican drug cartels" would be protected, but "The Arizona US Attorney is running guns to the cartels" would not be.

Normally, you can't appeal an "interlocutory" ruling, one made during the case, but which is not a final judgment. Denial of a motion to dismiss fits under that. Appeals courts want to see the case when it is finished, all packaged up, as it were.

There are a few ways around that. One is to ask the appeals court to order the trial judge to make a particular ruling -- but that is utterly within its discretion, and it can deny the motion without any reason, and without giving one. The other is to ask the trial court to certify a purely legal question to the appeals court; "tell me what the law is, so I can proceed." I haven't seen that done in a purely Federal action (I've seen it done where a Federal court certifies an issue of State law to the State Supreme Court, and asks it to interpret its law for guidance of the Federal court). That's what is being done here.

· BATFE

1 Comment | Leave a comment

fwb | November 17, 2013 9:37 PM | Reply

One notes when reading Article II that the language used in "shall have" when referring to the powers that are delegated from We the People to the President. There is a conspicuous absence of any allowance for "executive privilege". EP is a claim made by the executive that finds absolutely no basis in the Constitution.

Factually speaking, the power to have secrets is ONLY granted to Congress and only with respect to its journals. Since the Framers saw it necessary to grant secrecy power to Congress and withheld all secrecy power from the President, the concept of executive privilege is imaginary. The President in no way has any powers not delegated through a direct grant in the Constitution regardless of how any of the branches of government see it.

Leave a comment