Justice Dept. Revokes 25 Legal Guidance Documents Dating to 1975 - Polidicks

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/us/politics/justice-dept-guidance-documents.html[/URL] [QUOTE]WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Thursday that he had revoked more than two dozen documents that interpreted and explained a wide range of federal laws, including guidelines on storing explosives and accommodating people with disabilities. The 25 rescinded documents [URL="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4335309-Revoked-DOJ-guidance.html"]cover more than 200 pages[/URL] and date back as far as 1975. They include a Reagan-era “industry circular” by what is now known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives saying it was illegal to ship certain guns to buyers across state lines, and an Obama-era letter urging state and local judges not to impose fines and fees in a way that locks poor people into cycles of debt and prison. Mr. Sessions said the documents improperly went beyond explaining existing laws, and instead essentially created new rules — circumventing the regular process for creating regulations, which can include public hearings and comment periods.[/QUOTE] Yeah so one of the revoked things was a letter asking judges to not effectively make debtors' prisons. :wideeye: edit: added source

So could having college or medical debt lead to prison, theoretically? [QUOTE]Obama-era letter urging state and local judges not to impose fines and fees in a way that locks poor people into cycles of debt and prison.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=J!NX;53011730]So could having college or medical debt lead to prison, theoretically?[/QUOTE] Some states already have laws imprisoning people for child support debt. edit: more backstory on the letter edit2: from the same article [QUOTE]Another letter was issued in March 2016. It was addressed to chief judges and court administrators in states, and urged them to abandon policies that could trap poor people in cycles of fines, debt and prison. Suggesting that such policies were unconstitutional and illegal, it said arrest warrants should not be used as a way to collect fees, that courts were obligated to consider whether defendants were able to pay their fines and that judges should not use driver’s license suspensions as a punishment for missed payments. The letter echoed the [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/us-calls-on-ferguson-to-overhaul-criminal-justice-system.html"]conclusions[/URL] of the department’s investigation into the police and courts in Ferguson, Mo., which portrayed the legal system there as a moneymaking venture preying on poor and minority residents. [URL="https://civilrights.org/about-us/staff/vanita-gupta-president-ceo/"]Vanita Gupta[/URL], the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, who served as the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in the Obama administration and issued the fines and fees letter, said it came about because states and cities around the country wanted guidance after the department’s Ferguson report about what federal civil rights and constitutional law required. She maintained it did not articulate any new principles, but simply explained and clarified existing law, citing a [URL="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/461/660/case.html"]landmark 1983 Supreme Court ruling[/URL] that held that local governments cannot imprison people for failing to pay fines they could not afford. “The retraction of this guidance doesn’t change the existing legal framework,” Ms. Gupta said. “He can retract the guidance, but he can’t change what the law says.”[/QUOTE] Basically, “The retraction of this guidance doesn’t change the existing legal framework,” Ms. Gupta said. “He can retract the guidance, but he can’t change what the law says.” at least about the letter about court fees.

How can this not be interpreted as totally fucked up and maybe even unconstitutional on top of it? Though of course, as long as Obummer does a thing it's fair game to be removed for these assholes.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53011751]How can this not be interpreted as totally fucked up and maybe even unconstitutional on top of it? Though of course, as long as Obummer does a thing it's fair game to be removed for these assholes.[/QUOTE] It couldn't be considered as anything because they were not legally binding documents. Guidance letters are like Uncle Sam asking judges nicely to do things a certain way, but by no means binds them to do it that way. There's no way removing them could be unconstitutional, as they never had any legal precedence to begin with.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53011730]So could having college or medical debt lead to prison, theoretically?[/QUOTE] no, no laws have actually changed under this, they just inexplicably revoked a lot of convinient guidance memos because.... cutting government regulation? I guess?