5 ms·

Trump can choose to not enforce the law. That is of course illegal, and a high crime, but who is left to stop him?

tsimionescu 2y ago
It's not illegal, nor a high crime. It is in fact established precedent that this is in the purview of presidential power. This is why FBI agents are not raiding every marijuana shop in DC or the states that legalized it: since Obama, every president has chosen to instruct the justice department not to enforce federal law in this matter in those states.
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  Marijuana shops were deemed legal on the state level, you are comparing a real conflict in federalism to ignoring a congressional and supreme court ruling with massive national security implications on day 1.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    You're splitting hairs. The constitutional framework is clear - federal law has priority over state law. The only relevant aspect is whether the president has an obligation to enforce federal law or not. And the precedent is very clear: they do not.
    - throwawayq3423 2y ago
      > The constitutional framework is clear - federal law has priority over state law. It is anything but clear and the subject of ongoing legal battles. https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-federal-laws-not-all https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-... Again, you picked an example of a real conflict between state and federal law and compared it to an unambiguous law passed by congress confirmed by the supreme court that the incoming POTUS will simply ignore. No, that is not normal. Feeling like i'm going to be gaslit everyday for the next 4 years so i'll save that statement somewhere in a word doc.
zo1 2y ago
As opposed to the Democrats that refuse to enforce immigration law, or refuse to prosecute all sorts of crime they don't feel like (Except when they have to "Get Trump by all means")? We can play this game all day, so let's just agree Democracy is broken.
- myvoiceismypass 2y ago
  Which specific immigration laws did Democrats "refuse to enforce"?
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    Curious to this as well.
    - throwawayq3423 2y ago
      Any example at all will do.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Immigration isn't a democrat issue. From where I sit both parties are actually pretty well aligned on that one. Obama was surprisingly tough on immigration. ICE was doing raids at the time, I remember hearing about raids at the industrial chicken farms not far from where I live. Obama was also working heavily with Mexico to stop immigration at Mexico's southern border. Illegal immigration is going to be an unsolvable problems regardless of party, as long as we have the incentive of welfare programs that make it financially lucrative just to physically be in the country. I'm not arguing to get rid of those programs, but the incentives are there to come illegally and there's just no feasible way to secure such a large border with land, air, and sea travel.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

It's not illegal, nor a high crime. It is in fact established precedent that this is in the purview of presidential power. This is why FBI agents are not raiding every marijuana shop in DC or the states that legalized it: since Obama, every president has chosen to instruct the justice department not to enforce federal law in this matter in those states.

throwawayq3423 2y ago
Marijuana shops were deemed legal on the state level, you are comparing a real conflict in federalism to ignoring a congressional and supreme court ruling with massive national security implications on day 1.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  You're splitting hairs. The constitutional framework is clear - federal law has priority over state law. The only relevant aspect is whether the president has an obligation to enforce federal law or not. And the precedent is very clear: they do not.
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    > The constitutional framework is clear - federal law has priority over state law. It is anything but clear and the subject of ongoing legal battles. https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-federal-laws-not-all https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-... Again, you picked an example of a real conflict between state and federal law and compared it to an unambiguous law passed by congress confirmed by the supreme court that the incoming POTUS will simply ignore. No, that is not normal. Feeling like i'm going to be gaslit everyday for the next 4 years so i'll save that statement somewhere in a word doc.

zo1 2y ago

As opposed to the Democrats that refuse to enforce immigration law, or refuse to prosecute all sorts of crime they don't feel like (Except when they have to "Get Trump by all means")? We can play this game all day, so let's just agree Democracy is broken.

myvoiceismypass 2y ago
Which specific immigration laws did Democrats "refuse to enforce"?
- throwawayq3423 2y ago
  Curious to this as well.
  - throwawayq3423 2y ago
    Any example at all will do.
_heimdall 2y ago
Immigration isn't a democrat issue. From where I sit both parties are actually pretty well aligned on that one. Obama was surprisingly tough on immigration. ICE was doing raids at the time, I remember hearing about raids at the industrial chicken farms not far from where I live. Obama was also working heavily with Mexico to stop immigration at Mexico's southern border. Illegal immigration is going to be an unsolvable problems regardless of party, as long as we have the incentive of welfare programs that make it financially lucrative just to physically be in the country. I'm not arguing to get rid of those programs, but the incentives are there to come illegally and there's just no feasible way to secure such a large border with land, air, and sea travel.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]