(Washington, D.C.) The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Common Cause today filed an ethics complaint against Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, asserting that the Attorney General violated his ethical obligations to his client, the United States, by sending a letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) that impermissibly undermines the official U.S. legal position in pending litigation.
Specifically, Ashcroft outlined his interpretation of the Second Amendment in a May 17 letter to the NRA, an amicus party to the United States v. Emerson, a pending lawsuit regarding the Second Amendment. In the letter, which was printed on official letterhead from the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Ashcroft unequivocally contradicts the United States position in this case - despite vowing, during his Senate confirmation hearings, to put aside his personal views and uphold the nation's gun laws.
"We believe that Attorney General Ashcroft has blatantly violated numerous ethical guidelines that govern his conduct toward his client, the United States of America, said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Center. "Not only did he mislead the Senate and the American people during his confirmation hearings by vowing to defend the nation's gun laws, Mr. Ashcroft has publicly stated he supports the fundamental legal position of the defendant in a case that the United States is prosecuting. If the Attorney General had written a similar letter to the defendant's attorneys in the case, there would be no question as to the letter's impropriety. That the letter was sent to an amicus party supporting the defendant makes his statements no less objectionable."
The Brady Center and Common Cause filed the ethics complaint today, asking the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, the D.C. Court of Appeals' Board on Professional Responsibility, and the White House Counsel to investigate Ashcroft.
Scott Harshbarger, President of Common Cause, said: "With the Emerson case now pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, anything that the Attorney General says with respect to the Second Amendment is of more than passing interest. What's at stake here is the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice. If the Attorney General believes that the Justice Department should change its long-held position on the Second Amendment, the proper place to address that issue is in the federal courts, not in a letter to the NRA."
The Brady Center and Common Cause also submitted a concurring opinion letter from Professor Samuel Dash of Georgetown University Law Center, who was ethics adviser to former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Dash wrote that Ashcroft "violated a number of the governing Rules of Professional Conduct" by writing to the NRA, and that these violations were of an "egregious nature."
"Attorney General Ashcroft now, in an extrajudicial communication, has advocated a legal position challenging the constitutionality of that statute, and in effect, supported the dismissal of the indictment in the Emerson case," Dash wrote. "This act of disloyalty to his client, the United States, constitutes an impermissible conflict of interest."
Background:
In a May 17, 2001 letter to James J. Baker of the National Rifle Association, sent on the eve of the NRA Convention, Ashcroft presented a strongly worded argument in favor of the view that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to be armed. Ashcroft's letter directly contradicts the arguments made in a legal brief filed by the Department in United States v. Emerson, an ongoing case in which the Department is defending the indictment of a Texas doctor for gun possession while under a domestic restraining order. Dr. Emerson had brandished a gun in front of his estranged wife and young child. In its legal brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Department of Justice argued that Emerson's indictment did not violate the Second Amendment because the Amendment guarantees only the rights of citizens to be armed as part of an organized state militia, a view adopted in 1939 by the United States Supreme Court and by every federal appeals court. The NRA has filed an amicus brief in support of the criminal defendant, Dr. Emerson, and against the United States in Emerson.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In a 1999 legal brief filed in U.S. v. Emerson, a constitutional challenge against the federal statute barring gun possession by persons under domestic violence restraining orders, the Justice Department stated: "�a 'reasonable relationship' between the possession or use of a firearm and preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia must be demonstrated before a person can invoke any Second Amendment protections."
Ashcroft's letter to the NRA contradicts this view. In his May 17 letter he wrote: "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise."
During Ashcroft's confirmation hearings in January, several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee raised concerns about whether Ashcroft's personal and political views would conflict with the Attorney General's duty to defend the laws of the United States of America with which he personally disagrees. During vigorous questioning from several Senators, Ashcroft assured them that he would put aside his personal beliefs and uphold the nation's gun laws. When asked specifically about how he would approach the Emerson case and other legal attacks on federal firearms laws and regulations, Attorney General Ashcroft responded: "I believe these are all enactments of the Congress signed by the president, laws of the United States that are under attack. I would expect to defend those vigorously."
"It is hardly a 'vigorous defense' to make public statements and advance legal arguments that undercut the arguments made by the Department of Justice in support of the constitutionality of the statute," Barnes said. "Further, communicating his personal view to an adverse party in litigation is a clear violation of fundamental legal ethics."
Ashcroft lives up to expectations
A
anonymous
(view)
(Washington, D.C.) The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Common Cause today filed an ethics complaint against Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, asserting that the Attorney General violated his ethical obligations to his client, the United States, by sending a letter to the National Rifle Association (NRA) that impermissibly undermines the official U.S. legal position in pending litigation.
Specifically, Ashcroft outlined his interpretation of the Second Amendment in a May 17 letter to the NRA, an amicus party to the United States v. Emerson, a pending lawsuit regarding the Second Amendment. In the letter, which was printed on official letterhead from the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Ashcroft unequivocally contradicts the United States position in this case - despite vowing, during his Senate confirmation hearings, to put aside his personal views and uphold the nation's gun laws.
"We believe that Attorney General Ashcroft has blatantly violated numerous ethical guidelines that govern his conduct toward his client, the United States of America, said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Center. "Not only did he mislead the Senate and the American people during his confirmation hearings by vowing to defend the nation's gun laws, Mr. Ashcroft has publicly stated he supports the fundamental legal position of the defendant in a case that the United States is prosecuting. If the Attorney General had written a similar letter to the defendant's attorneys in the case, there would be no question as to the letter's impropriety. That the letter was sent to an amicus party supporting the defendant makes his statements no less objectionable."
The Brady Center and Common Cause filed the ethics complaint today, asking the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, the D.C. Court of Appeals' Board on Professional Responsibility, and the White House Counsel to investigate Ashcroft.
Scott Harshbarger, President of Common Cause, said: "With the Emerson case now pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, anything that the Attorney General says with respect to the Second Amendment is of more than passing interest. What's at stake here is the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice. If the Attorney General believes that the Justice Department should change its long-held position on the Second Amendment, the proper place to address that issue is in the federal courts, not in a letter to the NRA."
The Brady Center and Common Cause also submitted a concurring opinion letter from Professor Samuel Dash of Georgetown University Law Center, who was ethics adviser to former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Dash wrote that Ashcroft "violated a number of the governing Rules of Professional Conduct" by writing to the NRA, and that these violations were of an "egregious nature."
"Attorney General Ashcroft now, in an extrajudicial communication, has advocated a legal position challenging the constitutionality of that statute, and in effect, supported the dismissal of the indictment in the Emerson case," Dash wrote. "This act of disloyalty to his client, the United States, constitutes an impermissible conflict of interest."
Background:
In a May 17, 2001 letter to James J. Baker of the National Rifle Association, sent on the eve of the NRA Convention, Ashcroft presented a strongly worded argument in favor of the view that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to be armed. Ashcroft's letter directly contradicts the arguments made in a legal brief filed by the Department in United States v. Emerson, an ongoing case in which the Department is defending the indictment of a Texas doctor for gun possession while under a domestic restraining order. Dr. Emerson had brandished a gun in front of his estranged wife and young child. In its legal brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Department of Justice argued that Emerson's indictment did not violate the Second Amendment because the Amendment guarantees only the rights of citizens to be armed as part of an organized state militia, a view adopted in 1939 by the United States Supreme Court and by every federal appeals court. The NRA has filed an amicus brief in support of the criminal defendant, Dr. Emerson, and against the United States in Emerson.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In a 1999 legal brief filed in U.S. v. Emerson, a constitutional challenge against the federal statute barring gun possession by persons under domestic violence restraining orders, the Justice Department stated: "�a 'reasonable relationship' between the possession or use of a firearm and preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia must be demonstrated before a person can invoke any Second Amendment protections."
Ashcroft's letter to the NRA contradicts this view. In his May 17 letter he wrote: "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise."
During Ashcroft's confirmation hearings in January, several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee raised concerns about whether Ashcroft's personal and political views would conflict with the Attorney General's duty to defend the laws of the United States of America with which he personally disagrees. During vigorous questioning from several Senators, Ashcroft assured them that he would put aside his personal beliefs and uphold the nation's gun laws. When asked specifically about how he would approach the Emerson case and other legal attacks on federal firearms laws and regulations, Attorney General Ashcroft responded: "I believe these are all enactments of the Congress signed by the president, laws of the United States that are under attack. I would expect to defend those vigorously."
"It is hardly a 'vigorous defense' to make public statements and advance legal arguments that undercut the arguments made by the Department of Justice in support of the constitutionality of the statute," Barnes said. "Further, communicating his personal view to an adverse party in litigation is a clear violation of fundamental legal ethics."
Specifically, Ashcroft outlined his interpretation of the Second Amendment in a May 17 letter to the NRA, an amicus party to the United States v. Emerson, a pending lawsuit regarding the Second Amendment. In the letter, which was printed on official letterhead from the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Ashcroft unequivocally contradicts the United States position in this case - despite vowing, during his Senate confirmation hearings, to put aside his personal views and uphold the nation's gun laws.
"We believe that Attorney General Ashcroft has blatantly violated numerous ethical guidelines that govern his conduct toward his client, the United States of America, said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Center. "Not only did he mislead the Senate and the American people during his confirmation hearings by vowing to defend the nation's gun laws, Mr. Ashcroft has publicly stated he supports the fundamental legal position of the defendant in a case that the United States is prosecuting. If the Attorney General had written a similar letter to the defendant's attorneys in the case, there would be no question as to the letter's impropriety. That the letter was sent to an amicus party supporting the defendant makes his statements no less objectionable."
The Brady Center and Common Cause filed the ethics complaint today, asking the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, the D.C. Court of Appeals' Board on Professional Responsibility, and the White House Counsel to investigate Ashcroft.
Scott Harshbarger, President of Common Cause, said: "With the Emerson case now pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, anything that the Attorney General says with respect to the Second Amendment is of more than passing interest. What's at stake here is the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice. If the Attorney General believes that the Justice Department should change its long-held position on the Second Amendment, the proper place to address that issue is in the federal courts, not in a letter to the NRA."
The Brady Center and Common Cause also submitted a concurring opinion letter from Professor Samuel Dash of Georgetown University Law Center, who was ethics adviser to former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. Dash wrote that Ashcroft "violated a number of the governing Rules of Professional Conduct" by writing to the NRA, and that these violations were of an "egregious nature."
"Attorney General Ashcroft now, in an extrajudicial communication, has advocated a legal position challenging the constitutionality of that statute, and in effect, supported the dismissal of the indictment in the Emerson case," Dash wrote. "This act of disloyalty to his client, the United States, constitutes an impermissible conflict of interest."
Background:
In a May 17, 2001 letter to James J. Baker of the National Rifle Association, sent on the eve of the NRA Convention, Ashcroft presented a strongly worded argument in favor of the view that the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to be armed. Ashcroft's letter directly contradicts the arguments made in a legal brief filed by the Department in United States v. Emerson, an ongoing case in which the Department is defending the indictment of a Texas doctor for gun possession while under a domestic restraining order. Dr. Emerson had brandished a gun in front of his estranged wife and young child. In its legal brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Department of Justice argued that Emerson's indictment did not violate the Second Amendment because the Amendment guarantees only the rights of citizens to be armed as part of an organized state militia, a view adopted in 1939 by the United States Supreme Court and by every federal appeals court. The NRA has filed an amicus brief in support of the criminal defendant, Dr. Emerson, and against the United States in Emerson.
The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In a 1999 legal brief filed in U.S. v. Emerson, a constitutional challenge against the federal statute barring gun possession by persons under domestic violence restraining orders, the Justice Department stated: "�a 'reasonable relationship' between the possession or use of a firearm and preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia must be demonstrated before a person can invoke any Second Amendment protections."
Ashcroft's letter to the NRA contradicts this view. In his May 17 letter he wrote: "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise."
During Ashcroft's confirmation hearings in January, several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee raised concerns about whether Ashcroft's personal and political views would conflict with the Attorney General's duty to defend the laws of the United States of America with which he personally disagrees. During vigorous questioning from several Senators, Ashcroft assured them that he would put aside his personal beliefs and uphold the nation's gun laws. When asked specifically about how he would approach the Emerson case and other legal attacks on federal firearms laws and regulations, Attorney General Ashcroft responded: "I believe these are all enactments of the Congress signed by the president, laws of the United States that are under attack. I would expect to defend those vigorously."
"It is hardly a 'vigorous defense' to make public statements and advance legal arguments that undercut the arguments made by the Department of Justice in support of the constitutionality of the statute," Barnes said. "Further, communicating his personal view to an adverse party in litigation is a clear violation of fundamental legal ethics."
