The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[printcraft]

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

Clearly you don't understand the danger of a 5 yr. old girl.
Never turn your back on them.
Never forget.

 

[HoughMade]

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.

The Pardon Power is given to the President alone so there is no chance of a conflict between legislative authority and executive authority. Other executive powers, with a few exceptions, are based upon executing laws passed through Congress according to its (claimed) authority.

Traditionally, and legally, the Executive Order Power is not allowed to contravene legislative enactments. Again, this is not an issue as the power to pardon is the President's alone without parameters or oversight.

...and yes, mandamus would require a lawsuit.

 

[88GT]

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.

He doesn't have the authority to pick based on personal preference. And if he's going to play the unConstitutional card, he damn well better just man up and call it for that reason instead of *****-footing around and playing politics with it.

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.

There's a reason for that. I understand your point, but it smacks of philosophical hijinx and lacks, as you have presented it, particularly with this example, no practical standing.

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.

I'm not surprised. There's a reason I can never buy a subscription to the libertarian newsletter. It completely ignores the REPUBLICAN form of government we were intended to be, and as a consequence, negates the role of SELF-governance.

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

Is "faithfully execute" is just a suggestion then?

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.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but....I would recommend a better preparation of your argument because you have used an extremely poor example to highlight your point. You've failed to put any contingencies or conditions on your position, and even if someone can't identify the specifics of why it's wrong, we intuitively know it is still wrong.

When you give the .gov the authority to act with prejudice, you are creating a condition where the laws that exist to protect the rights of the people can be tossed aside. If LE doesn't have to enforce the laws, where is the line drawn? Letting someone go for possession of a bag of weed isn't even close to the same thing as not investigating and bringing to justice the perpetrator of a murder. But prerogative is prerogative. And that family with the dead relative can just suck it, I suppose.

Which really begs the question (a couple of them actually, but I'll just mention the one): what is the purpose of laws if no one has to enforce them, and by extension, no one has to abide by them?

 

[rambone]

If the Congress passed a budget-busting $10 Trillion spending bill, would it be wrong for the President to not spend it?

I say no.

The spending was authorized but it can't go anywhere without the Executive Branch committing to using it.

Refuse to enforce. Refuse to enslave the country to debt.

 

[steveh_131]

what is the purpose of laws if no one has to enforce them, and by extension, no one has to abide by them?

You could ask this same question in reference to any of the checks built in to our system of governance.

What is the purpose of laws if Congress doesn't have to fund them, and by extension, no one has to abide by them?

What is the purpose of laws if the Supreme Court doesn't have to uphold them, and by extension, no one has to abide by them?

The ability of a branch to nullify laws does not negate their purpose.

 

[chipbennett]

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?

It's all they have, along with references to refusal to carry out genocide orders in Nazi Germany.

 

[88GT]

You could ask this same question in reference to any of the checks built in to our system of governance.

What is the purpose of laws if Congress doesn't have to fund them, and by extension, no one has to abide by them?

What is the purpose of laws if the Supreme Court doesn't have to uphold them, and by extension, no one has to abide by them?

The ability of a branch to nullify laws does not negate their purpose.

The prerogative not to enforce them without being intellectually honest enough to admit and define the circumstances where such a prerogative doesn't exist does.

 

[chipbennett]

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?

Hopefully, on a bus out of the country, where they belong.

 

[steveh_131]

It's all they have, along with references to refusal to carry out genocide orders in Nazi Germany.

I know, chip. It's hard answer questions that expose the lack of consistency in your arguments.

The prerogative not to enforce them without being intellectually honest enough to admit and define the circumstances where such a prerogative doesn't exist does.

I won't argue that there ought to be a whole lot more intellectual honesty in our politicians.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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?

Yep. S/he could also instruct the various law enforcement agencies to not enforce NFA, et al, instruct IRS to not collect or penalize any part of ACA, etc. Kick this door open and when the other side gets in, they get to do the same thing.

 

[88GT]

I won't argue that there ought to be a whole lot more intellectual honesty in our politicians.

I'd settle for some of it among INGO members.

 

[chipbennett]

I know, chip. It's hard answer questions that expose the lack of consistency in your arguments.

False equivalence doesn't constitute a lack of consistency in an argument. That you need to resort to such hyperbole as to compare intentional non-enforcement of current immigration law with refusal to carry out genocide laws merely demonstrates that you don't, in fact, have an argument to justify Obama's failure to execute faithfully the laws of this country.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The Pardon Power is given to the President alone so there is no chance of a conflict between legislative authority and executive authority. Other executive powers, with a few exceptions, are based upon executing laws passed through Congress according to its (claimed) authority.

Traditionally, and legally, the Executive Order Power is not allowed to contravene legislative enactments. Again, this is not an issue as the power to pardon is the President's alone without parameters or oversight.

...and yes, mandamus would require a lawsuit.

Aren't EO's typically used to instruct organizations under the President's authority how to carry out the legislation, kind of like memo's I may get from my management telling me how they're going to enforce a safety policy that the board of directors enacted? Like legislation from congress, the board doesn't come up with all the minutiae of dotting "i's" and crossing "t's", they leave that to their management to carry out to fulfill the spirit and intent of the decision.

 

[steveh_131]

I'd settle for some of it among INGO members.

I could quote many, starting with accusations of 'anarchy'.

False equivalence doesn't constitute a lack of consistency in an argument. That you need to resort to such hyperbole as to compare intentional non-enforcement of current immigration law with refusal to carry out genocide laws merely demonstrates that you don't, in fact, have an argument to justify Obama's failure to execute faithfully the laws of this country.

It's ok, Chip. You don't have to answer the questions.

 

[88GT]

Aren't EO's typically used to instruct organizations under the President's authority how to carry out the legislation, kind of like memo's I may get from my management telling me how they're going to enforce a safety policy that the board of directors enacted? Like legislation from congress, the board doesn't come up with all the minutiae of dotting "i's" and crossing "t's", they leave that to their management to carry out to fulfill the spirit and intent of the decision.

That's the way they are supposed to operate. Imagine if your management sent a memo saying, "**** the board, we're not doing it."

 

[chipbennett]

It's ok, Chip. You don't have to answer the questions.

I didn't realize that "laws mandating genocide are inherently immoral and unconstitutional" actually needed to be articulated. Silly me.

 

[88GT]

I could quote many, starting with accusations of 'anarchy'.

Your argument as it's been presented here is exactly that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's the way they are supposed to operate. Imagine if your management sent a memo saying, "**** the board, we're not doing it."

At a lower level, I know a maintenance general supervisor that told some of his maintenance guys that the plant manager doesn't run his shift, he did. About 30 minutes later, he found out he was wrong.

 

[steveh_131]

I didn't realize that "laws mandating genocide are inherently immoral and unconstitutional" actually needed to be articulated. Silly me.

So you're saying a member of the executive branch does have a prerogative to refuse to enforce laws he finds immoral?

Your argument as it's been presented here is exactly that.

You are welcome to disagree with me, but if you want to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty then you'll have to explain yourself.

 

[chipbennett]

So you're saying a member of the executive branch does have a prerogative to refuse to enforce laws he finds immoral?

Go with "unconstitutional", and I agree with you. Except where abortion is concerned, nearly anything justifiable not to enforce as immoral is covered by the constitution anyway.

If Obama wants to make an argument that existing immigration law is either immoral or unconstitutional, I'm all ears.