4 ms·
As far as I've understood, the president as boss of the executive branch can order the executive branch to not apply a law or at least not prosecute violations.
by corty 6y ago
As far as I've understood, the president as boss of the executive branch can order the executive branch to not apply a law or at least not prosecute violations. One means to do this is to impose a certain interpretation, e.g. ordering "severe environmental impact" to mean nothing less than "making the area uninhabitable for anything beyond bacteria for more than 100 years" or something.
Also, laws are often vague and their intent is clarified in regulations issued by the executive, e.g. the EPA. The president could order those regulations to be changed.
- mcv 6y agoYeah, but can't the next administration simply start enforcing those laws again? A company would have to be incredibly foolish to count on something like this to protect them.
- corty 6y agoYes, the next administration could do that. But permits that have already been granted under the old rules usually remain valid. If not, possible lawsuits and damages awarded.
- mcv 6y agoBut does having a permit allow you to violate the law? What is the point of even having laws for this if they can simply be ignored?
- wahern 6y agoThe executive, and specifically the DoJ, has significant discretion to abstain from trying court cases. But regulatory agencies are a different matter. More importantly, in this context it would seem the EPA would be affirmatively approving projects without following the legally required process. I'm not sure what kind of discretion regulatory agencies have in completely abstaining from undertaking some action, but AFAIU they definitely don't enjoy much discretion to simply ignore the rules once they take that first step; not unless there's other legislation that gives them an escape hatch.