The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[Webster-dl]

That was the crux of my whole post.



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.

Well, that being said, if I could bring up a historical reference:

Mao Zedong refused to enforce the laws against murder on "Red Guard" who murdered old men, teachers, piano teachers, etc. during the Cultural Revolution. He also instructed his police forces not to enforce the law, stating that it was "no big deal" if these innocent people were beaten to death in the streets.

Does that make him a dictator?

 

[steveh_131]

Well, that being said, if I could bring up a historical reference:

Mao Zedong refused to enforce the laws against murder on "Red Guard" who murdered old men, teachers, piano teachers, etc. during the Cultural Revolution. He also instructed his police forces not to enforce the law, stating that it was "no big deal" if these innocent people were beaten to death in the streets.

Does that make him a dictator?

Admiral Wilhelm Canaris refused to execute the orders of his leader, Adolf Hitler, in his quest to slaughter millions of people.

Does that make him an anarchist?

 

[Webster-dl]

I dunno. I guess if he is against any form of organized government, then he would be an anarchist. Or he would be, if he were still alive.

But it doesn't answer my question, which I think helps go to the crux of this discussion: Mao refused to enforce the law. Does that make him a dictator? If not, what does make him a dictator? And does refusal to execute the law contribute to establishing the designation of "dictator"?

 

[ModernGunner]

So how does this work with the Faithful Execution Clause?

It doesn't. And the Liar-In-Chief has now placed himself in an impeachable position.

Whether or not that happens is another matter, of course.

The POTUS does not get to 'pick and choose' what laws he 'likes', and therefore enforces. Hence the 'Faithful Execution Clause'.

 

[steveh_131]

No, refusing to enforce laws really isn't the definition of "dictator". Kind of the other end of the spectrum really.

 

[88GT]

No, refusing to enforce laws really isn't the definition of "dictator". Kind of the other end of the spectrum really.

Not when it involves the usurpation and consolidation of power into the hands of one or a few individuals.

 

[steveh_131]

What power is he consolidating? The power to do nothing?

Should we consider that a negative amount of power?

 

[rambone]

Yes, it is. It is single handedly deciding the law by yourself. It's wrong whether I like the law or I don't.

I give you points for trying to be consistent but robotically enforcing all laws will lead to atrocity. I have listed examples in the first few posts.

However, I am confused at your position because you seem to have contradicted yourself. (See below)

Bottom line Obama technically has the right to do it, but that DOESN'T make it the right thing to do.

Right. It could very well be a poor decision to not enforce a law. That is up for debate, depending on the situation. But the prerogative itself is certainly important.

So - go on the record, Rambone - are you saying all of this just you would prefer an open border with Mexico? Or open borders period? I , for one, do think that we need to allow people in - but I believe that it needs to be done fairly and follow the law. That's not happened in a very long time.

My motivation for the thread is that I am annoyed with every Republican pundit in the country trashing the checks and balances I described in this thread. I not for open borders and especially not for closed, shoot-to-kill borders.

My point is - that the stated reason of the executive branch matters A LOT.

You may as well think of it as the "Administrative" branch. It is granted a certain set of powers and subsequently makes a judgement call on whether the powers are just, economical, constitutional, and necessary. Any injustices committed as a result of enforcing a law fall directly (in part) on the conscience of the executives. The "just following orders" defense is immoral and invalid.

We all would agree that the cartridge box is the LAST RESORT of the people, correct? The extreme case where one person finally say "enough is enough" and takes out a Hitler-type. Yes , I guess that's the "final" check and balance... right?

Yes.

 

[rambone]

That ignores the fact that the executive branch signed the bill into law.

It does not matter. The law could have existed since before the mayor/governor/president was even born. He certainly cannot blame dead congressmen for the oppression he brings on the people.

The obvious retort is that there are simply too many laws on the books, which is a problem that encompasses both the legislative and executive branches. In any case, instead of merely failing to execute laws, the President can request the Congress to take up the matter of that legislation. If the Congress fails to do so, then that inaction is tacit indication that the legislative branch does not view the laws as archaic or not worthy of enforcement.

The physical impossibility of enforcing every law, every time is a validation of what I'm saying. The executive branch MUST prioritize its enforcement and allocate its limited resources. There are only so many jail cells and dollars in the budget.

How would it do that?

By declining to arrest a citizen using an unjust law.

Yes, that check and balance is called the Judiciary and Congress. And when both of those duly pass and approve legislation, I see no where in any of our founding or ruling documents where POTUS has free rein to unilaterally disregard it.

Removing the Executive Branch's role in the checks and balances is a grave mistake. Executives each, individually swear an oath to uphold the constitution; they should be accountable for knowing it and attempting to protect the people with it. To suggest that the Executive Branch is blameless when tyranny thrives is wrong for a number of reasons. Who reminisces about the tyranny of the 1930s German congress? We remember the jackboots... and they hung from ropes for carrying out the law.

I firmly believe that all branches are accountable for their own actions and that the Executives have no valid argument for leaving the thinkin' to the other branches. They all play a role in checking each other.

This is how I learned checks & balances:

Disregard of a law may not inherently be tyranny, but neither can you say that it never is.

I fully concede that refusing to enforce a law could be an injustice. An example would be refusal to prosecute a murderer. That is more of a policy debate and it is up to the people to right the wrong.

I'm going to remember how hip and cool it is not to enforce laws in the next INGO Raptor Pack thread about an obvious case of excessive force by a law enforcement officer.

Bet all this happy horses**t in this thread goes right out the window.

See above.

 

[88GT]

Removing the Executive Branch's role in the checks and balances is a grave mistake. Executives each, individually swear an oath to uphold the constitution; they should be accountable for knowing it and attempting to protect the people with it. To suggest that the Executive Branch is blameless when tyranny thrives is wrong for a number of reasons. Who reminisces about the tyranny of the 1930s German congress? We remember the jackboots... and they hung from ropes for carrying out the law.

Who said anything about removing the Executive Branch from the relationship? I'm not sure anybody said POTUS was blameless either.

I firmly believe that all branches are accountable for their own actions and that the Executives have no valid argument for leaving the thinkin' to the other branches. They all play a role in checking each other.

This is how I learned checks & balances:

I must have missed the part where someone suggested otherwise. In point of fact, one might argue you were the one suggesting we toss the neat little graphic by implying that POTUS gets to act unilaterally without regard to the action of Confress and/or the judiciary.

I fully concede that refusing to enforce a law could be an injustice. An example would be refusal to prosecute a murderer. That is more of a policy debate and it is up to the people to right the wrong.

How is disregard of the law a mere policy decision in one case and a fight against tyranny in another? Why is it not up to the people to right the wrong of an unConstitutional law?

 

[Trigger Time]

Let's just impeach him on the laws he's broken. We have a case for sure. Come on congress put this bum in jail

 

[cobber]

That was the crux of my whole post.

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.

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

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

So you believe the present immigration laws are: 1) wrong and 2) unconstitutional?

How about he simply abolishes ALL federal regulations related to immigration? That's within his power. If he believes the enabling acts were wrong or illegal.

That ignores the fact that the executive branch signed the bill into law.

Yes, it does ignore that.

I'm going to remember how hip and cool it is not to enforce laws in the next INGO Raptor Pack thread about an obvious case of excessive force by a law enforcement officer.

Bet all this happy horses**t in this thread goes right out the window.

I know, INGOtarians don't support the property rights of others, just themselves.

You won't have to wait long, I guarantee.

Or the bleating and mewling that will ensue when Obama declares 'Congress won't move on gun control, so I'm implementing a series of common-sense and fair EOs to protect American lives and reduce gun violence'....


And my family immigrated lawfully, with all the fees and wait times. Where's my refund, if the law was wrong and unconscionable?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think maybe Obama might have brought the whole emperor thing on himself. First he acknowledged he wasn't one and wouldn't act like one, then...

Jon Stewart Goes After Obama on Immigration ? and Uses His Famous ?I?m Not the Emperor? Claim to Do It | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[ArcadiaGP]

If he is no longer bound by the Constitution - by what authority is he President?

 

[Expat]

If he is no longer bound by the Constitution - by what authority is he President?

Divine Right of Kings

 

[Kirk Freeman]

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And my family immigrated lawfully, with all the fees and wait times. Where's my refund, if the law was wrong and unconscionable?

Be certain to wait by the mailbox, the INGOtarians will pass the hat and get you that fat certified check quickly I am certain.

Pffft, bunch of "legal immigrants". How can a person be illegal?

 

[KLB]

So you believe the present immigration laws are: 1) wrong and 2) unconstitutional?

How about he simply abolishes ALL federal regulations related to immigration? That's within his power. If he believes the enabling acts were wrong or illegal.

I don't believe he abolished anything. Ignoring and abolishing are different things

Or the bleating and mewling that will ensue when Obama declares 'Congress won't move on gun control, so I'm implementing a series of common-sense and fair EOs to protect American lives and reduce gun violence'....

Creating laws is again a totally different thing.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I don't believe he abolished anything. Ignoring and abolishing are different things



Creating laws is again a totally different thing.

A distinction without a difference IMO.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Rambone -

You are mistaken in one thing, I believe. You seem to believe that either the President MUST enforce ALL laws to the nth degree OR he has the right to pick and choose what he likes. That is, in my opinion a straw dog , BS argument.

Can he set priorities in enforcement? OF COURSE. Not to do so would be ludicrous.

Is it really "have to enforce absolutely everything to the extreme" or "I can pick and choose and by the way - screw all y'all"??? I say not. I say that's a false choice.

As I pointed out - THEORETICALLY can he say "I'm not going to enforce this particular law because I have a stick up my arse and I don't agree with it"?? THEORETICALLY yes... but it is an EXTREME ACTION.

It is, as it were , the "nuclear option". It is akin to Congress threatening (not doing,mind you) impeachment. It is akin to the people threatening to play the heavier cards that they hold as well.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD... I am saying that he has gone farther with this than he has any reason to - and for the most petulant and stupid of reasons.

In most of the other cases that PMSNBC and mrj and the democrats are touting - the consequence of inaction was ??? DEATH on a large scale... people were escaping Castro or PolPot or Communist Russia, and if we didn't take action and quickly (by letting larger than normal numbers of folks in), then large scale humanitarian crisis would have been the result. So the Presidents in question acted - in the short term and allowed more in. They used the power (correctly in my opinion) to solve a short term crisis.

That is NOT what our petulant bit tyrant has done in this case.

What would have been the result of Kim Jung Obama waiting? NOT ONE DAMN THING. He could have gone to Republicans - and said "Guys, I want this at the top of the agenda for the new Congress - bring me a bill that works and let's get this problem solved once and for all." They would have done it. He could have even stated that PUBLICLY and gotten credit for it, and they would have done it. THAT is bipartisanship. That is diplomacy. What did America get? The same kind of divisive BullCrap that we have come to expect.

Who would have died if that approach was followed? NO [insert expletive of choice here] ONE. So where is the imperative? Where is the reason to fracture the country? Oh - tied up in his petty little ego?

And yet there are those who celebrate this move and think it's the greatest thing since toilet paper.... You should be ashamed of yourselves.