The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[rambone]

I'll begin with something controversial: It is not tyranny or dictatorial to refuse to enforce a law.

Dun dun DUNNN

Now I'll explain why. Despite what some claim, the Executive Branch is not obligated to robotically carry out every law, every time. It would be financially impossible and would inevitably lead to injustice and oppression.

The executive leaders -- mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, governors, presidents -- have the responsibility to allocate their limited resources and prioritize which laws to focus on. This is part of being an executive. Here are some examples.

Executive order: A police chief instructs officers to ignore violations of the seatbelt law.
Executive order: A mayor instructs city police to not waste resources arresting pot smokers.
Executive order: A sheriff instructs deputies not to harass/arrest people for bearing arms without permission.
Executive order: A governor instructs the Excise Police to not arrest anyone for oppressive alcohol statutes.
Executive order: A president instructs the ATF and DEA to cease all field operations because it is the right thing to do.

Is this tyranny? Is this the behavior or an emperor? I say absolutely not. Any constitution-following executive with an ounce of liberty and justice in his heart would do exactly that. It is his prerogative.

Laws should be looked at like tools in a tool-chest. The executive can choose to let some tools remain untouched and collecting dust; utterly ignored. To stop enforcing a law is not to "make a law."

Which laws should be ignored? That's a policy decision, up for debate.

 

[rambone]

Checks and balances

To reiterate why this is important, realize that refusing to enforce certain laws is a check and balance in the system.

Tyranny cannot prevail unless every branch of government is complicit. For injustice to become the standard, multiple checks and balances must fail simultaneously. Namely:

-- The Legislative Branch passes the tyrannical law.
-- The Judicial Branch upholds the tyrannical law.
-- The Executive Branch agrees to carry out the tyrannical law.
-- The People do not revolt and do not resist through jury nullification.

Checks and balances wouldn't do much good if any branch was compelled to act out tyranny. This is why the Executive Branch must be afforded the opportunity to refuse to carry out laws.

To imagine why this is so important, just review some prolific examples from our own history: Gun confiscation. Gold confiscation. Forcible human sterilization. Concentration camps. Imprisoning dissenters.

We depend on every branch -- including and especially the Executive -- to weigh the merits of laws and use judgement before carrying them out. If members of the executive branch refuse to carry out the tyrannical whims of the legislature, justice has a chance to prevail. It is when the enforcers bury their own consciences and make excuses ("I don't make the laws, I just enforce them... like a robot") that we are in the greatest danger.

 

[rambone]

Obama is a hardcore statist, to be sure, but it is simply dumb call him an emperor for not enforcing immigration laws to the maximum degree.

This is the cover of Drudge right now.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Consider this:

Some laws are right. Some are wrong. Your examples... maybe some would consider them to be unjust laws in the first place?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's all a matter of perspective. If a president decides to enforce or not enforce existing laws or to act outside of what his/her usually accepted constitutional powers may be called an emperor or statist or whatever depends on the how you view what he is doing. One man's freedom fighter is another's traitor and all.

ETA: If you view illegal immigration as just the free flow of labor across imaginary lines on a map, you probably view what he is doing as no big deal. If you view illegal immigration as a thumb in the eye of the rule of law, you might see lack of enforcement and amnesty as an issue.

 

[OakRiver]

Laws should be looked at like tools in a tool-chest. The executive can choose to let some tools remain untouched and collecting dust; utterly ignored. To stop enforcing a law is not to "make a law."

Which laws should be ignored? That's a policy decision, up for debate.

So how does this work with the Faithful Execution Clause?

 

[Birds Away]

As an anarchist, I'm sure you're happy with any laws that aren't enforced.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So how does this work with the Faithful Execution Clause?

I was going to ask that also. And for his reference Art 2 Sec 3 of the US Constitution. Bold mine.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

 

[rambone]

Consider this:

Some laws are right. Some are wrong. Your examples... maybe some would consider them to be unjust laws in the first place?

That was the crux of my whole post.

It's all a matter of perspective. If a president decides to enforce or not enforce existing laws or to act outside of what his/her usually accepted constitutional powers may be called an emperor or statist or whatever depends on the how you view what he is doing. One man's freedom fighter is another's traitor and all.

ETA: If you view illegal immigration as just the free flow of labor across imaginary lines on a map, you probably view what he is doing as no big deal. If you view illegal immigration as a thumb in the eye of the rule of law, you might see lack of enforcement and amnesty as an issue.

Its fine to debate and disagree with a policy approach. But to say that "not enforcing a law" is how dictators act is stupid. That's all I'm saying.

So how does this work with the Faithful Execution Clause?

Do you believe that clause means that all laws should be enforced, all the time?

As an anarchist, I'm sure you're happy with any laws that aren't enforced.

If I was an anarchist then I wouldn't support the constitution.

 

[TaunTaun]

Read an article on The Blaze today...

Glenn Beck stated that President Cruz was going to put out an Executive Action on not enforcing any tax laws that taxed a person more than 15% of their income...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Do you believe that clause means that all laws should be enforced, all the time?

Do you believe that clause means that the President can refuse to enforce any law he/she doesn't like?

 

[rambone]

Read an article on The Blaze today...

Glenn Beck stated that President Cruz was going to put out an Executive Action on not enforcing any tax laws that taxed a person more than 15% of their income...

I found this article:

“It is 2017. Newly elected President Ted Cruz (R) insists he has won a mandate to repeal Obamacare,” the editorial board said Monday night. “The Senate, narrowly back in Democratic hands, disagrees. Mr. Cruz instructs the Internal Revenue Service not to collect a fine from anyone who opts out of the individual mandate to buy health insurance, thereby neutering a key element of the program. It is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, Mr. Cruz explains; tax cheats are defrauding the government of billions, and he wants the IRS to concentrate on them. Of course, he is willing to modify his order as soon as Congress agrees to fix what he considers a ‘broken’ health system.”
​

I think that fits with the same spirit of what I wrote. A president who supports liberty and justice would not tolerate people being fined/arrested for not buying Obamacare packages.

 

[T.Lex]

I think I raised this in the other thread, but what about a president that realized the NFA laws are nonsensical, despite withstanding Supreme Court review? She might just decide not to enforce them.

Would that be tyrannical?

In all honesty, I think this whole debate is more about enforcement of laws "I" like vs. the laws "other people" like.

 

[rambone]

In all honesty, I think this whole debate is more about enforcement of laws "I" like vs. the laws "other people" like.

Our checks and balances attempt to ensure that people will not be oppressed through law unless it is for a reason that practically everyone "likes." This means that lawbreakers will walk free if any branch wills it. Its a good system.

For all the same reasons I oppose Mandatory Minimum Sentencing. It forces the Judicial Branch to act robotically.

 

[Expat]

Lawlessness is lawlessness. If he thinks a law is unconstitutional, he can ask the Court for a remedy.

 

[rambone]

Lawlessness is lawlessness. If he thinks a law is unconstitutional, he can ask the Court for a remedy.

What happens when the court approves of tyrannical laws? Should the executive branch blindly enforce them?

 

[Expat]

What happens when the court approves of tyrannical laws? Should the executive branch blindly enforce them?

The Congress passed it, the President signed it and SCOTUS reviewed it and found it Constitutional. So yes, just because the new President doesn't like it, he has to enforce it or try to change it. If not, then he should be impeached and removed from office. If the majority of people find it tyrannical there are remedies for that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What happens when the court approves of tyrannical laws? Should the executive branch blindly enforce them?

The Congress passed it, the President signed it and SCOTUS reviewed it and found it Constitutional. So yes, just because the new President doesn't like it, he has to enforce it or try to change it. If not, then he should be impeached and removed from office. If the majority of people find it tyrannical there are remedies for that.

This is correct. But for every law there's probably varying sizes of groups of people that deem it tyrannical. I suppose if the president felt strongly enough about it, s/he could do what s/he wanted and let possible impeachment or re-election weigh in on his decision.

If the executive can decide to not execute a duly passed piece of legislation, can he execute one that hasn't been? Is there really any difference?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This just in, INGOtarians endorse the Rule of One Man and a rejection of the Constitution.

How shocking.

INGOtarians consider the world theirs.

 

[rambone]

The Congress passed it, the President signed it and SCOTUS reviewed it and found it Constitutional. So yes, just because the new President doesn't like it, he has to enforce it or try to change it. If not, then he should be impeached and removed from office. If the majority of people find it tyrannical there are remedies for that.

This view portrays the executive branch as having ZERO role in the checks and balances. It means that enforcers are obligated to ignore liberty, justice, and the rights of the people. They must ignore right and wrong. If the SCOTUS says it is OK to enslave people because of the color of their skin, the enforcers must do it.

If the executive can decide to not execute a duly passed piece of legislation, can he execute one that hasn't been? Is there really any difference?

No, he can't. And there is a huge difference.