Talk:United States Attorney General

Charles Lee

Could someone fix the formatting error in which Charles Lee (who served from 1795–1801 under Washington and Adams) is only listed as serving under Adams? MB298 (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the list more, I've noticed problems with the following AGS:

• Charles Lee (1795–1801) under Washington and Adams, listed as serving only under Adams
• Caesar A. Rodney (1807–11) under Jefferson and Madison, listed under Madison
• Richard Rush (1814–17) under Madison and Monroe, listed under Monroe
• Benjamin Franklin Butler (1833–38) under Jackson and van Buren, listed under Van Buren
• James Speed (1864–66) under Lincoln and Johnson, listed under Johnson
• Philander C. Knox (1901–04) under McKinley and Roosevelt, listed under Roosevelt
• Francis Biddle (1941–45) under Roosevelt and Truman, listed under Truman
• William B. Saxbe (1974–75) under Nixon and Ford, listed under Ford
• Dick Thornburgh (1988–91) under Reagan and Bush, listed under Bush

There are many inconsistencies, for example Robert Kennedy served under both Kennedy and Johnson, and is listed under both. MB298 (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this the Article for USAG or Donald Trump and the 2017 AG hearings??

This reads too much like news and not like the article for a 200 year old job. Fair?

It is for the job, but relevant information from current affairs can be included if notable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Attorney General. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5gNto4peV?url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/bush-appointees-holding-fort-obama-nominees-await-confirmation/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/bush-appointees-holding-fort-obama-nominees-await-confirmation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Stub Article

This Article should expound upon the specific powers of the Attorney General. It would be my opinion that in the current state, the article is a stub. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Unconstitutionality of Matt Whitaker's appointment

It should be noted on this article that the President's appointment of Matt Whitaker is constitutionally suspect under the Appointments Clause and potentially violative of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. I had provided three sources in a reference discussing the matter, but the change was reverted. Previous acting AGs have been Deputy Attorney Generals (thus next in the line of succession) or otherwise in the line of succession, and wouldn't warrant the same scrutiny.

I think this is worth noting because Whitaker's situation is, thus far, a one-off.

Tenunda (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. Constitutional scholars of several different schools of thought have raised complementary constitutional and statutory arguments that find Whitaker's appointment to be unconstitutional. For the article to claim that Whitaker is the Acting Attorney General without noting that his position is widely legally disputed would be a mistake.

https://www.axios.com/trump-acting-attorney-general-whitaker-legal-challenges-a9199197-9817-42b4-8df2-95f92cabc861.html

Pigu (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Maurreen, 11 November 2018

Also agreed, there is a substantial legal dispute on the Constitutionality of this appointment. Reputable sources have been provided only to be reverted by anonymous and semi-anonymous users claiming that they are "liberal conspiracies" despite being well regarded legal sources (lawfare blog in particular), the reverter's political bias is clear and the edits with regard to the constitutionality questions should be restored. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: before you protected the page, there were consensus on mentioning the question of constitutionality. The current version does not. I personally think that the tooltip-note that has been deleted should be appropriate, but perhaps adding in this story: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/14/politics/whitaker-justice-mueller/index.html. Adding the (disputed) text is too much. Heb the best (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have written a better footnote, see below. Heb the best (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Maryland lawsuit disputing that Whitaker is Acting Attorney General

One of the United States (Maryland) is claiming in court that Matt Whitaker is not Acting Attorney General. The disputed nature of the appointment should be front-and-center, or we risk communicating a biased viewpoint to readers. [1] Pigu (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

'Front-and-center' would also be biased, but in the other direction. Yes, it definitely needs to be mentioned (see below), but the current status is that Whitaker is acting AG, until a Judge rules it as unconstitutional. A lawsuit should not shadow this fact. Heb the best (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request while the page is protected

I would like the following footnote to be included in the infobox and besides Whitakers name in the list of AG's, per above: Heb the best (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Thanks to you and Heb the best for adding this. Please also add the footnote reference to Whitaker's name in the list of Attorneys General. Pigu (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion of the Myers case should be edited to add the following:

The Supreme Court and Congress have since made clear that Myers overstated the president's power of removal. Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution states that "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," the president can appoint judges, ambassadors, and executive officials. The Constitution does not provide for the president to subsequently fire these appointees. Congress and the courts have exercised power to define and limit the president's legal authority to remove officials.

In 1867, for example, Congress enacted the Tenure of Office Act which required the president Senate approval to remove any official whose nomination had been confirmed by the Senate. After President Johnson unilaterally firing the Secretary of War, the House voted to impeach, although the Senate failed to convict. Congress eventually repealed the statute.

Subsequent to the Myers case, cited above, involving the firing of postmasters, in President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired William E. Humphrey from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) because of policy differences. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), the Court unanimously decided for Humphrey and limited the president's removal power to only those officials who immediately served him, such as White House aides, holding that Congress could legally restrict the president's ability to fire other officers.

In Wiener v. US (1958), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the limits on the president's removal powers when President Dwight Eisenhower dismissed a commissioner of the War Claims Commission. Even though the legislation did not include provisions about removal of commissions, the Court held that Congress did not intend commissioners to have to decide war claims while fearing "the Damocles' sword of removal by the President for no reason other than that he preferred to have … men of his own choosing." There, the Court once again ruled against a president who tried to exercise his removal powers for expressly political purposes.

In the fall of 1973, shortly after the attorney general and deputy attorney general resigned, the solicitor general, assuming the title of acting attorney general and following President Richard Nixon's orders, fired the special prosecutor. Later, a district court ruled that the removal violated the regulations that initially established the office (Nader v. Bork, 366 F.Supp. 104 (D.D.C.1973).

"Removal, Executive Power of." Dictionary of American History. . Encyclopedia.com. (April 10, 2018). http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/removal-executive-power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.212.110.110 (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Jim Comey's comments about Matthew Whitaker

You are invited to participate in Talk:Matthew Whitaker (attorney)#RfC: Jim Comey's comments about Matthew Whitaker. R2 (bleep) 21:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Edward H. Levi picture

Can we use the picture from his page? Pennwood711 (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The answer seems to be "no". To cite WP:NFTABLE: "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis." I find it difficult to see how it could be allowed here. Others with a better grasp of the WP-policies might have a more nuanced understanding of the question. ― Heb the best (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Daffy123 for providing a free image. I have proposed that the old one be deleted now. ― Heb the best (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Skinny 85

Why does Barr's numbering of 85, look skinnier, then the other numbering of AGs? GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

fixed needed a ! in the beginning of the line instead of | Psalms79;6-7 (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Sarry Everyone

Sarry everyone he does get sworn in today but this afther noon at the White House so Some time afthr he gets sworn in we can put the date but not right now. Thanks.96.36.68.29 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Now before I forget everyone please do not update Rod Rosenstein or the United States Deputy Attorney General pages becuse we all know that Rod Rosenstein is or might leave after William Barr gets in. I don't really know the date he leaves so please check the Website of the United States Department of Justice. Please and thank you.96.36.68.29 (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

All related articles have been updated, however. By the time you 'revert' all those updates, he'll have been sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Living Former AGs

Should William Barr be on the list as he is living and is a former AG based on his first stint as AG. Psalms79;6-7 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

As I've always understood it, it's the same office & therefore we always removed a fmr office holder, if he/she is holding the same office again. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

what's the precedent as in when was the last time a cabinet member has been reappointed to the same position that it would be the way it was done. Psalms79;6-7 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't know, but over at List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives, Pelosi isn't listed in the living former speakers section. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am a new editor, and I would like to suggest establishing a policy that provides for an accurate sequential "historical" table-timeline.

It's not intuitive for someone to look at a historical list, and not see the name of a "former" person serving on that timeline and in that table.

May I add William Barr's name to the table?Aleoxio (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Richard Kleindienst error?

Hello! There looks like mismatch...

Richard Kleindienst, he resigned in the midst of the Watergate scandal nearly a year later, on April 30, 1973. So, the table said until May 25, 1973.... --Philogik (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I have corrected it, now using a source. The old date did not have any. However, we should be open for the situation that Kleindienst only tendered his resignation on April 30, but it only became effective on May 25. ― Heb the best (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Still accurate

Article says "For clarification, the Attorney General is not a general, and it is incorrect to address him as 'general'." Is this still accurate or has usage changed through the years. I notice in the Barr Hearing all the Senators addressed Barr as General. 68.231.27.254 (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Having looked into this issue, the only putatively authoritative source I could find on the Internet (as opposed to sites featuring debates and disagreements about the issue on sites like Quora) is from the website of a government protocol expert, who addresses the topic here:

https://formsofaddress.info/attorney_general/#General_Attorney_General

In short, this expert says, yes, attorneys general are referred to in certain professional situations (such as in court) as "General _____" , but . . . the same expert also indicates it makes no sense grammatically or otherwise to follow this convention.

As he writes:

"[A]ddressing an attorney general as ‘General (Name)’ [in a room of actual military officers of general rank] make no sense. . . . Further among the range of offices with ‘general duties’ . . . solicitor general, surgeon general, inspector general . . . [n]one are ever addressed as ‘General (Name)’. . . . Lastly, the plural of attorney general in the dictionary is not ‘attorney generals’ but is ‘attorneys general’ . . . emphasizing the office is an ‘attorney’, and ‘general’ is an adjective describing the attorney with a broad range of duties for the state. Thus, there is no way they would be generals."

And yet, as this expert notes, it happens. This source seems to convey that while the custom in question might happen in formal legal settings, it should not happen elsewhere. See what the same source writes here:

https://formsofaddress.info/attorney_general/

In particular, note his statement:

"The Attorney General of the United States is not addressed as ‘General (Name)’ in written correspondence or oral conversation outside the courtroom." Skb8721 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thumbnail Picture on Search Engines is Incorrect

The thumbnail showing with the Wiki link, at least in Duckduckgo, is Jeff Sessions, not William Barr. I have no idea how to correct this - can someone fix it?

Vote count column

I just undid an edit that added a column to the table of AGs to show their Senate confirmation vote counts. The editor who added it (pinging User:Blademan007) stated that it included the last 50 years, based on documentation that could be found. I'm sure this took some work to do, but I didn't think it made sense to include for a few reasons:

• It added little useful information - most votes were not close, and there's no indication of why certain ones were or were not. And either way, confirmed is confirmed; the AG with 98 votes has no more or less authority than the AG with 51 votes.
• It clutters up the table and takes up a lot of horizontal space. On my laptop, it made the table significantly harder to read and therefore less useful.
• A very minor point, but this seems like original research. Sometimes that's unavoidable for table data (you may have to look up specific individuals' birth dates or whatever), but this seems a little different for some reason.
• If there are reliable sources that talk about any sort of trend or comparison of confirmation votes, that might conceivably be worth including as a textual section. Alternatively, if specific confirmation battles are notable, I'd imagine those would be included either as a subheading under the individual's article (or perhaps the article about the president who appointed them), or potentially in a separate article if it was sufficiently notable. But I don't think listing bare vote totals adds anything.

Personally, I find this data somewhat interesting, but I don't think this is the place for it. --EightYearBreak (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead changes

Would love to hear some feedback on my minor editing change. --Gracievalor (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Julietdeltalima Courtesy ping for your thoughts. I have no comment, merely refactoring the talk in the course of answering a question from Gracievalor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Too soon for Merrick Garland?

He was confirmed March 10th, but isn't expected to be sworn in until March 11th. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Matt Fitzpatrick: I think you're right. That distinction is accurately reflected in the lede text and in the Merrick Garland article but the info box needs to be changed. Wallnot (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Matt Fitzpatrick: I updated the infobox to indicate that he is serving in an acting capacity. Wallnot (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I would further add that there's no indication in reliable sources that Garland actually is serving as acting AG. The DoJ website still lists Wilkinson as acting. But since he's the designate, I think it's an OK compromise, especially because it'll be all but impossible to keep Wilkinson listed as acting AG in the infobox for another 24 hours (everyone who comes across it will try to change it back without checking the talk page or edit history). Wallnot (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Garland's political party

There's been a back and forth on this page concerning Garland's political affiliation. He was initially listed as an independent. Several users changed that to Democratic, and others changed it back to independent. One user pointed out (correctly I think) that we probably ought not to indicate one way or the other until we have a reliable source saying that. I think this is the correct approach—Wikipedia policy is to use the information found in reliable, secondary sources, not to try to figure things out for ourselves. Wallnot (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

John Demers

Why isn't John Demers listed on the table of former acting AGs? He served as acting AG (for a few hours).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:941:6100:2D1C:3C6E:7BA4:9D4D (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I would second this if somebody wants to add it Willthehelpfuleditor (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Acting Attorney's General list

Should/can we make a table separate from the attorney general table. (Aricmfergie (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC))

photo inappropriate

The photo of former Judge Garland in the infobox is highly inappropriate. He is attorney general. The photo should be replaced, even with him in a golf shirt cooking at a barbeque or something. A judges robe is very wrong to be there just as a picture of an attorney general wearing a Nazi armband.

Please. Get it right. Charliestalnaker (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Charliestalnaker, Can you lay out your specific problems with the image? I see no issue why the original image shouldn't be usable. Plus the image you're suggesting using as a replacement is uncropped and a bad profile as his face is towards the side. Curbon7 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Not that I agree with the decision to change the image to the one Charliestalnaker chose, but they already did lay out their specific problem with the image: namely, that it shows Garland in judge’s robes, which they consider inappropriate for the attorney general article. They are probably right, and the image should be changed once a better one/official AG portrait is available, though certainly there is no point changing it to an awful image like the one Charlie tried earlier. Wallnot (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What are some of the responsibilities of the USAG?

I came to this article hoping to find information on the responsibilities of the USAG, possibly also on the Deputy and Assistant AGs. Does anyone have any leads on this? It seems the US Constitution is pretty quiet on the subject. What other sources of law would be useful here? OJH (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You may want to check out the article for United States Department of Justice. The AG is the head of that organization, and most of "his" legal responsibilities are going to be delegated within the agency rather than personal to the AG. The Constitution itself would be silent, because it discusses the office of the President, and by extension the Executive Branch, but the specific positions ("Officers of the United States"), departments, etc., are created by statutes (normal laws passed by Congress), not directly from the Constitution. That said, of course, if you find items in (or from) the Department of Justice article that belong here, you could add them; you're surely not the only person who has had this question. --EightYearBreak (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Protect Constitutional Law!

Constitutional Blockers and people who sign them and 10 years per accurance and 5 for extortion. Press Charges as you are sworn to do. Not by force but by suit. Pen 173.219.33.8 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Business Law - Concerns about paying insurance premiums without receiving payout, also short term and long term disability. How to escalate concerns and receive payout with interest 2603:6080:C105:A92F:687E:226F:2CD6:99B0 (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Question

Some former attorney generals are listed as attorneys. Others are listed as lawyers. Garland is, by virtue of having been a judge, a jurist. Is there a difference between lawyer and attorney? Thanks. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization

The lede needs to match the title, it should either be capitalized or not, but the two should be consistent. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Stand on principle. Giving a AG a title of Chief Justice when it’s reserved for chief Justice of the Supreme Court

The US Attorney General is not a chief Justice. the description of the attorney general is factually incorrect and or misleading through and by omission. Causing confusion by obfuscating from the facts.

“The United States attorney general (AG) is the head of the United States Department of Justice, and is the chief law enforcement officer”

Note of fact: The statement from US AG Wikipedia page is attributing power and or giving title that is reserved for the President of the United States and it gives the AG a title that is reserved for the chief Justice of the Judiciary Branch. Factually speaking, this description and title rendered is incorrect. Making it a lie. Because it is giving a title to the United States Attorney General that is reserved by the United States Constitution for another and therefor it is in opposition to the US Constitution. Which is the foundation and bedrock to all that has sprung out from it since and it is the Supreme law of the land and the supremacy clause applies.

The title of Chief is only bestowed upon two positions by the United States Constitution and the attorney general is not one of them. The term “Chief” is only mentioned two times for the “Commander in Chief” as a title given to the President of the United States who is head of the Executive Branch and it is a title given to the “Chief Justice” who is the head of the United States Judicial Branch.

The title does not apply to principal officers of the executive branch. The attorney general is an executive officer of the United States, who serves the president of the United States. All three branches of government [Legislative, Executive, Judicial appoints] has the power vested by the people through the constitution to choose their officers who will work under them, the attorney general is neither head nor chief of anything, the President is chief and head.

The Take Care Clause of The United States Constitution, states that the President of the United States is charged with faithfully executing the laws of this nation. The attorney general as a principe officer answers to and serves the president of the United States, they are neither head nor chief of anything, the President is chief and head.

Article II, Section 3: “he [President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

“The chief justice of the United States is the chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and is the highest-ranking officer of the U.S. federal judiciary.” -Wikipedia

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

The term justice is only used three times in the US Constitution, none of which is to describe an Attorney general. The term general is used three times within the United States Constitution, none of which to describe the US attorney General. SupremeLawofLand (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)