Is the General Prosecutor (Attorney General) part of the Executive or the Judiciary?
If Executive, how seperated from the judiciary should it be? I am confused. People talk of the need for its independence from the executive!And then i just read in a book, it's originally meant to be part of the executive(the book in oN Egypt)!..I don't get it, what is its ideal form? I want to know what it is like generally in different countries.
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
In the United States, the Attorney General is part of the Executive Branch of government. (S)he is appointed by the President and serves at the pleasure of the President. The Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice and is part of the President's Cabinet.
The Attorney General is considered to be the top law enforcement agent and lawyer in the country and is charged with executing (enforcing) the laws (therefore executive branch).
In the U.S., the Attorney General is definitely not a part of the Judicial Branch of government. The Judicial Branch is charged with interpreting the law, not enforcing it per se. Once the Judicial Branch offers an opinion on a particular matter, it is binding on the Attorney General and everyone else until the opinion is either overruled by a higher court or the law is changed bv the Legislative Branch.
As far as "independence" from the Judicial Branch and Executive, the Attorney General is independent from the Judicial Branch in the U.S. The two are really not connected in any way. The more common issue is whether the Attorney General is sufficiently independent from the President in the U.S. because (s)he is usually a personal friend and political ally of the President. Sometimes, for instance, like in the U.S. currently, there is the complaint by some opponents and critics of President Bush that Attorney General Gonzales has not independently and objectively enforced the law but rather has done so in a way that pleases the President. I don't believe that is necessarily true. Rather, I think the Attorney General simply has similar views about the law generally.
- 3 years ago
Why might he do considered one of those element? scuffling with the bonuses might dissipate NYC tax revenues. Secondly, he being the AG of long island state must be looking after the proper pastimes of the electorate of long island state, a number of whom are the salary earners of those bonuses. How might he try this? He does not have status? it particularly is now against the regulation for an corporation to pay the settlement income to an worker? look into the precedent that would set --- i'm sorry, i will't pay you the comprehensive income simply by fact some flesh presser could be embarassed for no longer reading the bill he enacted into regulation. AIG isn't FLEECING the wide-unfold public. AIG became inspire to sell CRSwap coverage. coverage is an particularly regulated industry --- so the two the State of long island and the Fed bless those financial gadgets --- They have been considered one of those fulfillment in advertising those bond/coverage policies --- that if AIG went abdomen up --- the individuals might nonetheless be leaping from intense workplace homes. AG Cuomo is grandstanding --- he's carry forth to do unlawful acts for public intake.
- 1 decade ago
Attorney General is a part of the Executive.
Whenever Govt.want to pass a bill the legal department frames it,and then it is passed in the parliament.Now if somebody challenges it in the court of law then the Attorney General has to support the law framed by the Govt in the court
of the law and defend it so that the Govt gets favorable .order
from the court. Suppose Reliance has diverted international
call as domestic call and the Govt. has slapped a fine of
Rs 1000 crore and Reliance has gone to the court then
the Govt. has to defend its action through the Attorney