4 ms·
That's even more arbitrary, and won't solve the problem, as the next administration can reintroduce it. It's a temporary patch of the problem, and is technicall
by Fellshard 8y ago
That's even more arbitrary, and won't solve the problem, as the next administration can reintroduce it. It's a temporary patch of the problem, and is technically also an abdication of the executive from their assigned role.
- aidenn0 8y agoIf the executive believes it to be unconstitutional then it's not an abdication of their assigned role.
- Fellshard 8y agoIt's not the executive's role to determine whether something is constitutional or not.
- Spivak 8y agoCorrect, but refusal to enforce a law is one of the checks the executive has on the legislature. When this happens it's up to the judiciary to mediate.
- Fellshard 8y agoThat doesn't /seem/ right - executive can /veto/ a law before it is passed, but I don't believe they are given the ability to not enforce that law once it's been passed. That is effectively creating law, and is reaching into the legislative branch, still.
- StillBored 8y agoBut that is the way it works, take the marijuana legalization state laws. Technically, its still against federal law, but the feds have basically agreed not to prosecute growers/distributors/users in those states. It was actually a giant question when trump came into office whether he would start arresting people working/running the legal pot shops in Colorado/etc. So, there are a lot of other cases, where statutes are simply not enforced, but haven't been removed due to lack of political will. Sodomy/etc laws are another area, where they remain on the books despite a number of supreme court rulings declaring various aspects unconstitutional. That means its quite possible depending on where you live frequently performed acts, not explicitly allowed by the supreme court are actually illegal. Random google hit about "fornication" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/virginia-bill-decriminalize-sex-outside-marriage-stalls-n23516 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/virginia-bill-decr...
- Fellshard 8y agoCorrect. There's a difference between what theoretically should be, and what we actually see happening, and what is enforced. The legislative branch seems happy to abdicate /its/ role to the administrative in the states when it finds it convenient to do so.
- hannasanarion 8y agoYes it is, that is literally why the Framers gave them the veto power. The modern conception of the veto as a political power rather than as one of constitutional defense was invented by Andrew Jackson.
- Fellshard 8y agoAnd that power can only be applied before the law is passed, not after.
- aidenn0 8y agoAre you claiming that the legislature can compel the executive to violate the constitution? I'm pretty sure that's not right.
- Fellshard 8y agoYou've got a fair point. I don't know if there's a process for the executive to submit such a passed law to the judicial in the first place, before it takes effect.
- odonnellryan 8y agoSelective enforcement is absolutely fine.
- hannasanarion 8y agoNobody said it solves the problem. The point is that it helps. Also, "I am not going to use an unjust power that I have" is hardly an abdication of their role, it's just a choice made using the power of the office.
- Fellshard 8y agoThe problem is that it's /not/ a power they have, and ought to be shut down by the judicial ASAP. The only reason it's not is because it's not been prosecuted for prior administrations, and has become a pattern of laxity, allowing the legislative to claim to wash their hands of culpability when a law they stand for in public isn't acted on in private.