The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[chipbennett]

Trying to argue that Obama has the Constitutional authority (or leeway) to do what he's doing, by arguing that it is morally or Constitutionally right not to execute immoral, unconstitutional, or arcane laws doesn't really help your point any. If anything, it merely demonstrates the audacity of what he's doing. Immigration law is constitutional, just, and enforceable. Our problem with illegal immigrants stems from a lack of enforcement of existing immigration laws. Issuing an executive order that makes official policy of not enforcing existing immigration law only serves to exacerbate the problem.

But please, carry on with your arguments that Obama's (in)action on faithful execution of immigration law is functionally equivalent to failing to carry out genocide orders in Nazi Germany.

 

[steveh_131]

Was there a similar wailing and gnashing of teeth when Kim Jung Cruz refused to fund Obamacare?

I mean... the legislature passed it, the judiciary system upheld it, the President signed it.

Was it his Divine Right of Kings to de-fund it?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Was there a similar wailing and gnashing of teeth when Kim Jung Cruz refused to fund Obamacare?

I mean... the legislature passed it, the judiciary system upheld it, the President signed it.

Was it his Divine Right of Kings to de-fund it?

Previous congresses do not bind the hands of successive congresses. Funding (or not) is the prerogative of congress.

 

[cobber]

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

Creating laws is again a totally different thing.

It is within the power of the executive to NOT implement rules/regulations to carry out the will of Congress. Or to deregulate. Or tinker.

Or abolish the entire CFR if he so chooses. I would actually applaud that. Starting with IRS, Education and HHS regs.

I'm going to hold my breath. I'm sure it's coming...

 

[steveh_131]

Previous congresses do not bind the hands of successive congresses. Funding (or not) is the prerogative of congress.

If successive congresses don't like what previous congresses have done, they have methods for un-doing it. Filibustering and shutting down the government is fundamentally pretty similar to what Obama is doing. It is not the technically prescribed process, but still an important check.

Don't get me wrong, I was cheering for him on it.

 

[rambone]

Who said anything about removing the Executive Branch from the relationship?

Maybe I misunderstood, but I asked if you thought the Executive Branch had a role in stopping bad laws from affecting the people. You asked "how?" and said the place to stop bad laws was in the other 2 branches. Post #33. Your responses so far appear to disagree with the concept of an Executive refusing to enforce a given law.

How is disregard of the law a mere policy decision in one case and a fight against tyranny in another?

Because not all laws bring tyranny upon the people.

Why is it not up to the people to right the wrong of an unConstitutional law?

It is. The people should feel free to stand up and fulfill their role any time.

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'm not against immigration laws. The current ones are really stupid and bureaucratic and could use reform. I'll leave the specifics to other threads on the subject. This is about the process of checks and balances in any area.

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'....

Inventing new ways to arrest gun owners is acting like a dictator.

Refusing to oppress people using the current gun laws is acting like a constitutionalist. That's the premise of the "Oathkeepers" group.

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.

I think it is obvious, but a constitution-supporting president would appear EXTREMELY different from the status quo politicians we deal with. That's not a bad thing.

I'm glad you agree that the prerogative exists.

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.

I can't really distinguish why it is a false choice. To carry out every law as it is written is to guarantee oppression of innocent people. The executive has the option to not enforce. Its a real, valid choice.

As an executive, to throw up one's hands and defer all blame to the other branches is lazy and dishonest. The executive bears the responsibility for what he oversees. If he imprisons gun owners, or other innocent people, he will be remembered as a tyrant.

 

[88GT]

Was there a similar wailing and gnashing of teeth when Kim Jung Cruz refused to fund Obamacare?

I mean... the legislature passed it, the judiciary system upheld it, the President signed it.

Was it his Divine Right of Kings to de-fund it?

I do believe that's a Constitutional prerogative of Congress explicitly, no?

Aside from that, I'm not sure Cruz actually has any authority vested in himself alone to do what you are suggesting he did.

Aside from that, as I said in my very first post, there may be some aspects of what Obama is doing that superficially passes Constitutional muster. He does NOT have the authority to overturn law though. There are aspects of his plan that are attempting to do just that. There becomes a point where not enforcing the law crosses the line and Obama is walking it.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I asked if you thought the Executive Branch had a role in stopping bad laws from affecting the people. You asked "how?" and said the place to stop bad laws was in the other 2 branches. Post #33. Your responses so far appear to disagree with the concept of an Executive refusing to enforce a given law.

Yep, you misunderstood. I did not say the place to stop bad laws was in the other 2 branches. And you have reading comprehension issues if you think my responses disagree with the concept of any branch refusing to enforce an unConstitutional law.

They are not calling him an emperor for not enforcing immigration laws. They are calling him an emperor because he is acting like someone vested with all authority, not just a little bit of it. He does NOT, despite your claims, have the unfettered authority to pick and choose which laws to enforce.

I really hate to channel Kirk on this but that's the difference between rule of law and rule of man.

How would it do that?



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.

Is executive pardon a Constitutionally enumerated power? Then it's not really a problem. I don't have a problem with any branch following the Constitution. I do have a problem when the same power that you're championing lets them get away with violating the Constitution. Disregard of a law may not inherently be tyranny, but neither can you say that it never is.

Where in those posts does it say one branch, any branch, can't act to protect and preserve and follow the Constitution?

 

[steveh_131]

I do believe that's a Constitutional prerogative of Congress explicitly, no?

Yes, providing [or denying] funding is their constutitional prerogative.

And providing [or denying] execution is the constitutional prerogative of the Executive branch.

 

[88GT]

Borrowing from another thread: Caught on Camera: Obama Called Exec Immigration Action Illegal 25 Times | Fox News Insider

I'd also like to point out here that there is a fallacious aspect to the entire argument of the OP. The point is that there is a moral obligation of the Executive Branch (and the Judicial and the Legislative) not to enforce unConstitutional laws. All well and good. But the example being trotted out is NOT unConstitutional. So that begs the question: does not the Executive branch (and the Judicial and the Legislative) have an obligation to enforce those laws that are Constitutional and duly passed? Particularly in this case where the non-enforcement harms the citizens of this country and benefits the ILLEGAL invaders.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Come on now, can we all just realize what happens when Obama goes out for pizza in your neighborhood?

 

[steveh_131]

In Gainesville, GA it is illegal to publicly eat fried chicken with any instrument other than your hands. Apparently they choose not to enforce this ordinance?

Will there be any letters from INGOtalitarians to these petty dictators of officers who choose not to arrest these anarchists who eat their chicken with a fork or... God forbid... a spork?

Please address any correspondence to 'Kim Jung Sheriff, Petty Dictator'.

 

[88GT]

And providing [or denying] execution is the constitutional prerogative of the Executive branch.

Where is the explicit wording for that?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

In Gainesville, GA it is illegal to publicly eat fried chicken with any instrument other than your hands. Apparently they choose not to enforce this ordinance?

Will there be any letters from INGOtalitarians to these petty dictators of officers who choose not to arrest these anarchists who eat their chicken with a fork or... God forbid... a spork?

Please address any correspondence to 'Kim Jung Sheriff, Petty Dictator'.

Are you REALLY attempting to equate a blue law on eating chicken with the laws that make it illegal to cross our borders and enter our country without following the process? Really?

 

[steveh_131]

Are you REALLY attempting to equate a blue law on eating chicken with the laws that make it illegal to cross our borders and enter our country without following the process? Really?

Either we expect our executive branch to blindly execute every law or we don't.

Make up your mind.

 

[steveh_131]

Where is the explicit wording for that?

Where is the explicit wording allowing Congress to deny funding for legislation that has passed through every branch of the government?

 

[88GT]

Where is the explicit wording allowing Congress to deny funding for legislation that has passed through every branch of the government?

The part where Congress gets to pass the bills on funding. It doesn't say Congress has to keep funding things, only that they can. On the other hand, POTUS is charge with "faithfully executing."

 

[HoughMade]

I'm late to the party here...actual work gets in the way sometimes.

Anyhoo, I have no problem, theoretically, with an executive choosing how to enforce laws or choosing not to enforce certain laws.

There are plenty of checks and balances...one of which being the ballot box, another being mandamus.

That is theory and whether it was wise or not would be a case-by-case analysis.

What the President is doing on immigration goes far beyond simply not enforcing laws and turns into legislating. You turn a corner when you move from simply refusing to enforce a law uniformly to setting up specific parameters when you will and will not enforce the law, especially when Congress has already, legislatively, set up different parameters.

 

[T.Lex]

What the President is doing on immigration goes far beyond simply not enforcing laws and turns into legislating. You turn a corner when you move from simply refusing to enforce a law uniformly to setting up specific parameters when you will and will not enforce the law, especially when Congress has already, legislatively, set up different parameters.

I don't necessarily disagree, but would that put the Vietnam draft-dodger conditional pardon in the unconstitutional category? It was eventually made moot by the unconditional pardon, but still - the parameters are certainly vague, if they exist at all.

The other issue is how to resolve it? A lawsuit.

 

[KLB]

On a different note, this could end up being a real mess in the long run. If a republican wins the next election, that person could come in and immediately reverse this decision. Where would that leave the people that choose to follow Obama's rules?

 

[rambone]

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"?

Dictating, in my opinion, begins when powers are being created. That is not the same as refusing to use powers that exist.

Yep, you misunderstood. I did not say the place to stop bad laws was in the other 2 branches. And you have reading comprehension issues if you think my responses disagree with the concept of any branch refusing to enforce an unConstitutional law.

Where in those posts does it say one branch, any branch, can't act to protect and preserve and follow the Constitution?

When you said, "He does NOT, despite your claims, have the unfettered authority to pick and choose which laws to enforce," I took it to mean you disagreed with the OP and the executive prerogative. Sorry if I misread your position.

I'd also like to point out here that there is a fallacious aspect to the entire argument of the OP. The point is that there is a moral obligation of the Executive Branch (and the Judicial and the Legislative) not to enforce unConstitutional laws. All well and good. But the example being trotted out is NOT unConstitutional. So that begs the question: does not the Executive branch (and the Judicial and the Legislative) have an obligation to enforce those laws that are Constitutional and duly passed? Particularly in this case where the non-enforcement harms the citizens of this country and benefits the ILLEGAL invaders.

Every law that is currently on the books is currently "constitutional and dually passed" in the technical sense. In our legal system, laws are considered constitutional until proven otherwise, unfortunately.

To answer your question, I don't believe it is morally obligated to enforce every law, even if it is constitutional. The constitution could easily provide for the ability to oppress. To use an obvious example, alcohol was once Federally prohibited in the constitution. There is no debate about whether it was constitutional or not. I believe it would be wrong to enforce it.

Where is the explicit wording for that?

I don't believe there needs to be an explicit statement for inactivity.

Are you REALLY attempting to equate a blue law on eating chicken with the laws that make it illegal to cross our borders and enter our country without following the process? Really?

Lets take a step back. You're too focused on one level of government, one issue, one executive order. The stuff I wrote should be valid to any executive: mayor, sheriff, etc. I even believe cops have the prerogative to not enforce.