The executive prerogative to not enforce laws

[T.Lex]

And yet, the Constitution also gives the Senate a check on the negotiating authority of the Chief Executive through its requirement to "advise and consent" to treaties with other nations, and the House has the authority to block spending on the Chief Executive's projects as well.

I bolded the part I somewhat disagree with. The executive is free to negotiate whatever he wants. But, for the treaty to be binding, it needs the advice and consent. A smart, principled executive will certainly take into account what the Senate may or may not agree with. It can then become a political issue.

But, many an executive has negotiated certain provisions, then waited for the right time to present the treaty. There's nothing inherently wrong with that strategy.

Ultimately, the Senate's only role is a yes/no vote on a negotiated treaty.

As for the purse-strings, I totally agree.

 

[rambone]

Fair question.

Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution - and really, Article 2, Section 1, which includes all executive powers - the president has the authority to negotiate foreign treaties. That has always been understood to include the over-arching ability to engage in foreign policy.

See:
Jus tractatuum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congress is, by design, composed of factions. A group like that is structurally incapable of managing foreign policy.

So, the executive of a gov't is afforded the ability to deal with the international community.

In the context of this thread, foreign policy is an area where the executive has a near-absolute prerogative to do what he pleases. The current administration's treatment of Venezuela, although within his prerogative, is an example (IMHO) of the lack of guiding principles.

I agree and think this is consistent with what I wrote earlier.

Obama's U.S. foreign policy is unprincipled and illogical, but its been like that for over 100 years.

 

[T.Lex]

Obama's U.S. foreign policy is unprincipled and illogical, but its been like that for over 100 years.

I agree that there have been ebbs and flows over the years, but some administrations have been more principled than others. ("Logic" and "foreign policy" are almost mutually exclusive.)

IMHO, GW Bush's foreign policy was mostly principled. People may not agree with how he acted on those principles, but that doesn't mean he lacked them.

 

[rambone]

In short, it's not up to one man whether a given law is "unjust."
That decision belongs in the hands of the judiciary or the legislative branch.
If the head of the executive branch doesn't like a given law, then he may request a change or repeal, which can only be executed by the legislative branch.
To just pick and choose what you will enforce and refuse to enforce based entirely on one man's preferences is the behavior of a dictator, not a president.
PERIOD

This is just as flawed as the "Just following orders" defense. It lacks any semblance of independent morality other than "legal=good."

I would venture to say that most oppression in world history was "legal." The same has been true in the USA. There are lots of obvious examples.

Slavery was approved by the courts, congress, and the majority of people. If a governor in the 1840s refused to enforce slavery on a helpless minority, by your logic he would be a "dictator...PERIOD."

Sorry, that's bunk.

 

[oldpink]

Refusing to execute your oath of office is what's bunk.

 

[rambone]

"Nuh-uh."

 

[oldpink]

I think we should all take our cues from someone who proudly proclaims himself as an anarchist.

 

[mrjarrell]

I think we should all take our cues from someone who proudly proclaims himself as an anarchist.

Are you talking about rambone? You really are ignorant, if you are. He's a republican and an elected party member.

 

[oldpink]

Are you talking about rambone? You really are ignorant, if you are. He's a republican and an elected party member.

Considering that you are so far to the left that you would consider Joe Stalin a Republican?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

 

[JS1911]

Are you talking about rambone? You really are ignorant, if you are. He's a republican and an elected party member.

Pipe down there anarchist Butters, adults are speaking.

 

[cobber]

Are you talking about rambone? You really are ignorant, if you are. He's a republican and an elected party member.

And I'm the King in Prussia, so there.

Why the ad hominem bro? Why do you hate liberty?

 

[KLB]

I think we should all take our cues from someone who proudly proclaims himself as an anarchist.

I've never seen Rambone claim to be an anarchist. He has in fact talked about being part of the Republican party and participating in the state republican convention.

 

[mrjarrell]

And I'm the King in Prussia, so there.

Why the ad hominem bro? Why do you hate liberty?

There's no ad hom at all. Just a statement of fact. He is dead wrong. And so are you.

 

[mrjarrell]

Considering that you are so far to the left that you would consider Joe Stalin a Republican?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Just like a pig in slop, reveling in your ignorance. You really do bring nothing to the party.

 

[jamil]

Just like a pig in slop, reveling in your ignorance. You really do bring nothing to the party.

And this brings much to the party. Because that's obviously not an ad hom.

purple/

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Wow this thread really blows.

 

[jamil]

As an aside, I'm just curious.

Ram, aren't you a delegate? If so, did you run to help Ron Paul work out his delegate scheme to plant libertarians as Republican delegates to subvert the establishment repubs? If so, cudos. Sorry it didn't work. Not that I think Ron Paul is sane, but I do think the Republican establishment needs an enema.

 

[T.Lex]

...the Republican establishment needs an enema.

I agree with this.

In fact, I think it is happening at lower levels.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree with this.

In fact, I think it is happening at lower levels.

Isn't that where enemas usually happen?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I agree with this.

In fact, I think it is happening at lower levels.

Isn't that where enemas usually happen?