![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
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:
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)
This reads too much like news and not like the article for a 200 year old job. Fair?
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I would like the following footnote to be included in the infobox and besides Whitakers name in the list of AG's, per above: [a] Heb the best ( talk) 06:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
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)
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)
Can we use the picture from his page? Pennwood711 ( talk) 21:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Why does Barr's numbering of 85, look skinnier, then the other numbering of AGs? GoodDay ( talk) 19:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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:
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)
Would love to hear some feedback on my minor editing change. -- Gracievalor ( talk) 20:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why isn't John Demers listed on the table of former acting AGs? He served as acting AG (for a few hours).
/info/en/?search=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)
Should/can we make a table separate from the attorney general table. ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 21:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
|
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:
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)
This reads too much like news and not like the article for a 200 year old job. Fair?
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I would like the following footnote to be included in the infobox and besides Whitakers name in the list of AG's, per above: [a] Heb the best ( talk) 06:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
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)
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)
Can we use the picture from his page? Pennwood711 ( talk) 21:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Why does Barr's numbering of 85, look skinnier, then the other numbering of AGs? GoodDay ( talk) 19:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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:
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)
Would love to hear some feedback on my minor editing change. -- Gracievalor ( talk) 20:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why isn't John Demers listed on the table of former acting AGs? He served as acting AG (for a few hours).
/info/en/?search=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)
Should/can we make a table separate from the attorney general table. ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 21:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)