The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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

Sure he does. Just like you or I do. But just like you or I, he must stand in judgement for his actions. The public may totally agree and if there's no public pressure to "take corrective action" there's likely to be none. On the other hand if the howl goes up, he may find himself in deep crap. Just as an easy example, you may find a kill a serial child rapist while not in the act. You may be charged with murder or you may slide because of the previous horrendous and prevention of future ones with the public's approval.

 

[steveh_131]

Go with "unconstitutional", and I agree with you.

Then why did you say 'moral'?

Should a member of the executive branch shirk all morality and do whatever is asked of him, if the correct process is used to ask it?

 

[steveh_131]

Sure he does. Just like you or I do. But just like you or I, he must stand in judgement for his actions.

I think I agree with this.

 

[bingley]

Just as an easy example, you may find a kill a serial child rapist while not in the act. You may be charged with murder or you may slide because of the previous horrendous and prevention of future ones with the public's approval.

Oh, good. We're not talking about serial child rapists. We're talking about guys who do tough menial labor jobs for $4.50 per hour.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Oh, good. We're not talking about serial child rapists. We're talking about guys who do tough menial labor jobs for $4.50 per hour.

Context. Context is important. Where in the hell did you get that I was associating child rapists with immigrants?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

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.

Iguana

Think about this for a sec... Cops are specifically charged with EVEN HANDEDLY ENFORCING the law. I know that some don't - and I'm one of the first to give them hell over "selective enforcement". For example - If a hot chick drive by speeding and they either do or do not pull her over like they would anyone else. Ditto for giving other cops a break for speeding in their civilian cars.

The ONLY time that anyone has the right to selectively NOT enforce the law is a) if there is a higher law that they are enforcing or b) if the law or order that they are being asked to enforce is unconstitutional.

Case A) - If you are working a murder investigation, you don't screw up your work on that in order to arrest someone for a much lesser issue - see the silly blue law references. Clearly prioritization is in order. And the leaders in the executive branch CAN set the priorities. I.E. - directing police to work a murder vs spending their time on a lesser issue.

Case B) - If you are being asked to do something unconstitutional - you have the DUTY to refuse that order DUE TO THE OATH YOU TOOK.

Possible Case C) - from GFGT above - if you would be committing something you find immoral, you then face a difficult choice - you can not do it. But you may well face a harsh reprisal for making that choice.

Those (A and B) are the only two cases where I think they've got a solid leg to stand on for selectively NOT enforcing the law.
So - could Obama legitimately have said - I have directed law enforcement authorities to put immigration enforcement at the bottom of their list of to do's?? YES!! And he KIND OF did that. But that is NOT saying we will never enforce it. It is saying - the law still stands, but it's a very low priority.

Hopefully you can see the difference between the Oathkeepers and Obama. They are legit - he is ****. You do the math.

Yeesh.

 

[rambone]

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.

I understand the concern, but the condition already exists. We see cases of true criminals escaping justice all the time, based on a refusal to prosecute.

Its frustrating, often unjust, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The line is drawn based on however far the people tolerate it.

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?

The Law is the power to take away freedoms. Since the Law is a dangerous animal, it is secured behind a series of checks and balances.

Think of the checks and balances like the tumblers in a lock that is restraining The Law. All the tumblers must be aligned before the Law can be released. If any one tumbler is not aligned, the lock will not open.

The same follows with government. All the branches of government must be in agreement before taking away freedoms using The Law. If any one dissents, the Law is restrained.

If the people feel strongly that one branch of government is not behaving well enough, they will do something about it.

 

[bingley]

Where in the hell

Watch your pottymouth, God-fearing man!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Watch your pottymouth, God-fearing man!

Thanks mom.

 

[steveh_131]

Think about this for a sec... Cops are specifically charged with EVEN HANDEDLY ENFORCING the law. I know that some don't - and I'm one of the first to give them hell over "selective enforcement". For example - If a hot chick drive by speeding and they either do or do not pull her over like they would anyone else. Ditto for giving other cops a break for speeding in their civilian cars.

The ONLY time that anyone has the right to selectively NOT enforce the law is a) if there is a higher law that they are enforcing or b) if the law or order that they are being asked to enforce is unconstitutional.

So...in my Georgia example, you would criticize the local police for not arresting those who would eat their fried chicken with a fork in public?

Just wanted to be sure.

 

[JTScribe]

President Palpatine: Obama Dissolves the Old Republic

That’s the crucial point. Because he is acting in defiance of existing law, illegal immigrants who seek refuge under Obama’s plan will actually gain zero legal protection. Their immunity from deportation rests entirely on the will of the executive, not on the law of the land. So it ends whenever the chief executive says it does.I’ll quote from Obama’s speech for one thing: his description of how this faux-amnesty program works:

If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes—you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.
​

That last part is a blatant, cruel lie. Those who are foolish enough to register under this program will not “get right with the law.” They will get right with the current administration, for this particular moment. But if the political winds shift—or in two years when a new president is sworn in—all bets are off.

Who would volunteer to identify themselves to the government under those terms?

 

[HoughMade]

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.

Yes.

How's that for an efficient answer?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

.

WH says no presidential memoranda or Exec Orders needed to implement his deportation delay policies. Pres Obama signed 2 memoranda today creating a task force on integration of new Americans & an interagency group on visa modernization.

 

[88GT]

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

What do I need to explain? You are advocating a government that picks and chooses the enforcement of laws at whim.

I understand the concern, but the condition already exists. We see cases of true criminals escaping justice all the time, based on a refusal to prosecute. Its frustrating, often unjust, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The line is drawn based on however far the people tolerate it.

That's exactly what you're doing. You're arguing that because it happens already, there's no logical/moral reason for government's to be held to a duty to enforce laws, any of them.

Your last line is a cop-out. You have no problem holding a theoretically utopian standard for some things, but when pressed to apply that standard to all things in the real world, you resort to inanities like that.

The Law is the power to take away freedoms. Since the Law is a dangerous animal, it is secured behind a series of checks and balances.

Think of the checks and balances like the tumblers in a lock that is restraining The Law. All the tumblers must be aligned before the Law can be released. If any one tumbler is not aligned, the lock will not open.

The same follows with government. All the branches of government must be in agreement before taking away freedoms using The Law. If any one dissents, the Law is restrained.

If the people feel strongly that one branch of government is not behaving well enough, they will do something about it.

That doesn't answer my question. If there is no consistency in the enforcement of laws, what is the purpose of having them?

Aside from the fact that the laws aren't created to take away freedom, your argument is tangential and largely irrelevant to my question.

 

[chipbennett]

Then why did you say 'moral'?

Should a member of the executive branch shirk all morality and do whatever is asked of him, if the correct process is used to ask it?

Mainly to simplify the discussion, without getting onto a tangent regarding what constitutes morality - which is exactly where you appear to be trying to take the discussion with your followup question.

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, good. We're not talking about serial child rapists. We're talking about guys who do tough menial labor jobs for $4.50 per hour.

...who also happen to commit violent crimes - including rape - at a higher rate than those who are in the country legally.

 

[T.Lex]

President Palpatine: Obama Dissolves the Old Republic

That's an interesting take. It really depends on if Obama is going to allow "qualified" illegals to obtain permanent resident status.

In terms of what a new president can change, after the fact, I think any illegals that have new permanent resident applications resolved before the new president takes office, they will be able to stay. (It becomes a "vested" right once the benefit has been conferred.) Since, from what I've read, it takes about a year, then they basically have the next year to get into the system.

For those that are still in-process when a new president is sworn in, that would get VERY tricky - both legally and politically.

If this ends up being some sort of pure non-prosecution for the next 2 years, but we won't let you become permanent residents, then it really is a the whim of POTUS.

Overall though, I don't think it is accurate to say that a new president could completely undo what Obama will do with this EO.

 

[88GT]

That's an interesting take. It really depends on if Obama is going to allow "qualified" illegals to obtain permanent resident status.

In terms of what a new president can change, after the fact, I think any illegals that have new permanent resident applications resolved before the new president takes office, they will be able to stay. (It becomes a "vested" right once the benefit has been conferred.) Since, from what I've read, it takes about a year, then they basically have the next year to get into the system.

For those that are still in-process when a new president is sworn in, that would get VERY tricky - both legally and politically.

If this ends up being some sort of pure non-prosecution for the next 2 years, but we won't let you become permanent residents, then it really is a the whim of POTUS.

Overall though, I don't think it is accurate to say that a new president could completely undo what Obama will do with this EO.

Are the qualifications for permanent residence status defined by statute , as with citizenship qualifications, or are those subject to change at the whim of the sitting POTUS and governed by EOs? Serious question.

 

[rambone]

Case A) - If you are working a murder investigation, you don't screw up your work on that in order to arrest someone for a much lesser issue - see the silly blue law references. Clearly prioritization is in order. And the leaders in the executive branch CAN set the priorities. I.E. - directing police to work a murder vs spending their time on a lesser issue.

Case B) - If you are being asked to do something unconstitutional - you have the DUTY to refuse that order DUE TO THE OATH YOU TOOK.

Possible Case C) - from GFGT above - if you would be committing something you find immoral, you then face a difficult choice - you can not do it. But you may well face a harsh reprisal for making that choice.

1. You say my opinion is but concede multiple instances when laws can be ignored, including "moral objection." I think this is tacit admission that I have a point.

2. Doing the right thing has often been met with harsh reprisals historically. This should not dissuade us from doing the right thing.

3. I agree with A, B, & C but I think there are more reasons to refuse to enforce laws.

Case D) Refusal to enforce a law because it is detrimental to the community.

Case E) Refusal to enforce a law because it is wildly unpopular. (You know, responding to constituents.)

Case F) Refusal to enforce a law because it harms the innocent.

Case G) Refusal to enforce a law because it costs too much.
​

To enforce laws is to own the consequences. I have trouble faulting good men for not wanting blood on their hands and injustice on their consciences. I am convinced that the prerogative to not enforce laws is valid and important.

 

[steveh_131]

What do I need to explain? You are advocating a government that picks and chooses the enforcement of laws at whim.

No, I am advocating a government where any branch can check the other branches ability to restrict our freedoms.

You can disagree with my position if you like, but your disagreement does not mean it is 'intellectually dishonest'.

Mainly to simplify the discussion, without getting onto a tangent regarding what constitutes morality - which is exactly where you appear to be trying to take the discussion with your followup question.

Yes, I figured that was your goal. You really don't like where I'm headed with that follow-up question, do you? Is that why you won't answer it?