3 ms·
Even with minimum sentences, if the President and Governor instruct police to ignore all violations of a law, you can treat it as if it didn't exist. Or police
by wongarsu 3y ago
Even with minimum sentences, if the President and Governor instruct police to ignore all violations of a law, you can treat it as if it didn't exist. Or police officers can decide that the punishment is so low that enforcing a law isn't worth their time (see e.g. California's shoplifting misdemeanor).
But all of these are examples of other people disliking a law. If the right other people dislike a law, you can ignore it. But whether you like it doesn't really play into it.
- SoftTalker 3y agoThe executive's opportunity to squash a law is his veto power. Once the law is on the books, the executive branch is duty-bound to enforce it, as it represents the will of the people via their elected representatives. If executives can just decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore then we're partway down the road to dictatorship. Judges have the power to find that a law is unconstitutional, but not Presidents or Governors.
- wongarsu 3y agoYet, states making marihuana legal while it's illegal at the federal level is a thing. If the federal executive branch did what they are "duty-bound" do to, then this wouldn't be possible at all. The methods the President chooses or doesn't choose to employ how to enforce the Controlled Substances Act seems to be more or less at their discretion in practice, and "we have limited resources and bigger fish to fry" seems to be a valid excuse, despite this being a judgement call at the whims of the executive branch.
- SoftTalker 3y agoBut they will still pull it out of their back pocket when it suits their needs. Like a dictator would.
- Auracle 3y agoThere’s also the massive example of illegal immigration. DACA basically says “we’re not going to prosecute this specific group for this specific law.”