3 ms·

> There's a deeply important question as to whether any US president ever has the authority to direct federal agencies to not enforce a law at all. In addition

> There's a deeply important question as to whether any US president ever has the authority to direct federal agencies to not enforce a law at all. In addition to your example regarding immigration, arguably the entire legal/medical marijuana industry in various states depends entirely on exactly this. 1) Federally, marijuana is still a Schedule I drug. Congress by way of delegation to the DEA has declared marijuana has no accepted medical uses and a high risk of addiction. 2) Sale and distribution of controlled substances is a federal crime. These businesses operate openly and with the tactic approval of the state in which they operate. 3) Wickard v Filburn established th reach of federal authority into exclusively intrastate commerce. So the only way these business can continue to operate is if the president directs federal law enforcement to not enforce the drug laws. This is (IMO) a good reason why the degree to which our political process has come to rely on EOs is a bad thing. We've just accepted that congress can apparently do nothing (except apparently ban TikTok) and so we just accept that every 4 years, the entire political landscape will change as some laws become unenforced and others are suddenly enforced with enthusiasm.

kelseydh 2y ago
In fairness, this situation emerges because Congress has proven broadly incapable of passing or updating laws, even when polling shows a strong majority consensus for a new direction. Ultimately, the govt is run by people, and those people's opinions about what's a priority will influence which laws get enforced. Law enforcement being responsive to an uncodified social contract is a healthy thing.
- mrandish 2y ago
  > govt is run by people, and those people's opinions about what's a priority will influence which laws get enforced. Yes, I agree that will always be true - to some extent. And, sometimes, it's generally a good thing - up to a point. However at other times and places, like the Southern states in the Jim Crow era, having law enforcement's personal opinions influencing which laws get enforced has gone very badly. While I certainly hope the pervasive excesses of the Jim Crow south will never be repeated, there have continued to be a variety of lapses and regressions in limited areas about once a decade. So, I don't think it's safe to assume they won't continue in the future. That means we'll keep needing a codified system enabling latitude in some aspects of enforcement while also punishing transgressions. No doubt, this is hard stuff. > Congress has proven broadly incapable of passing or updating laws Here's a tangential point that I'll mention anyway. As you said, when it really wants to, congress is perfectly capable of passing laws quite quickly. It's just that in our present very evenly divided political climate, there's no strong consensus mandating action for a lot of issues. In the absence of a significant percentage of the population, like at least two-thirds, wanting congress to act, congress is correct in not acting. There are now a substantial number of voters who vote with an intentional strategy of maintaining congressional gridlock. For them, the current situation of congress being unable to pass many significant or sweeping new laws isn't a bug, it's "the will of the people" (or at least those 'people'). > even when polling shows a strong majority consensus for a new direction. I'm skeptical that the things which have a strong majority consensus are also the things which congress can realistically act on and things which voters want congress to act on. And all three need to be true. There are quite a few things I personally think would make the world a better place if the majority of people would do them voluntarily BUT I would never want congress to force these good ideas on other consenting adults by law. So, I would answer a poll strongly in the affirmative about what people should do - but also not want congress to force anyone to do it - and polls never make that distinction.
  - kelseydh 2y ago
    There are plenty of issues where there exists a strong majority consensus for a certain course of action that Congress hasn't acted on. The sad fact is that the opinions of what 90% of Americans think have been found to have essentially no impact at all on what Congress does. Summary: https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem-tmp https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem-tmp Paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- tpmoney 2y ago
  > In fairness, this situation emerges because Congress has proven broadly incapable of passing or updating laws, even when polling shows a strong majority consensus for a new direction. I disagree. I think the TikTok ban itself has proven congress can absolutely pass laws when it wants to. Congress can do its job when it’s in their interests to do so. But the voting public generally doesn’t hold them to their responsibilities. We’re more comfortable with the speed of executive orders rather than the security of the legislative process. Sure, congress had ridiculously and historically low approval ratings… and yet the incumbents keep getting re-elected. I would argue the recent successes of the various “tea party” candidates (both electorally and legislatively) is the result of some part of the voting public deciding to hold their candidates responsible for their jobs. That their successes are not necessarily in the interests of the majority is a consequence of the majority not holding their own candidates responsible for their jobs
mrandish 2y ago
Agreed. The drug enforcement example is a good one and there are a bunch of others too. > the entire political landscape will change as some laws become unenforced and others are suddenly enforced with enthusiasm. Yes, the expansion of powers which recent presidents have engineered is deeply worrying. Each president (from both parties) has used everything they inherited from the previous president and then each has expanded their powers a little more with no clear authority to do so. James Madison would be appalled at the scope of today's presidential powers, as would all the founders (except maybe Alexander Hamilton who wanted to make the presidency a lifetime office and sort-of king-like - although maybe even Hamilton would be wondering if his Imperial presidency has gone a little too far :-))
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  On the other hand some of the founding father would probably be proud how dysfunctional and corrupt the Federal government is becoming though. Especially they’d welcome the politicization of the civil service and the return of the spoils system.

kelseydh 2y ago

In fairness, this situation emerges because Congress has proven broadly incapable of passing or updating laws, even when polling shows a strong majority consensus for a new direction. Ultimately, the govt is run by people, and those people's opinions about what's a priority will influence which laws get enforced. Law enforcement being responsive to an uncodified social contract is a healthy thing.

mrandish 2y ago
> govt is run by people, and those people's opinions about what's a priority will influence which laws get enforced. Yes, I agree that will always be true - to some extent. And, sometimes, it's generally a good thing - up to a point. However at other times and places, like the Southern states in the Jim Crow era, having law enforcement's personal opinions influencing which laws get enforced has gone very badly. While I certainly hope the pervasive excesses of the Jim Crow south will never be repeated, there have continued to be a variety of lapses and regressions in limited areas about once a decade. So, I don't think it's safe to assume they won't continue in the future. That means we'll keep needing a codified system enabling latitude in some aspects of enforcement while also punishing transgressions. No doubt, this is hard stuff. > Congress has proven broadly incapable of passing or updating laws Here's a tangential point that I'll mention anyway. As you said, when it really wants to, congress is perfectly capable of passing laws quite quickly. It's just that in our present very evenly divided political climate, there's no strong consensus mandating action for a lot of issues. In the absence of a significant percentage of the population, like at least two-thirds, wanting congress to act, congress is correct in not acting. There are now a substantial number of voters who vote with an intentional strategy of maintaining congressional gridlock. For them, the current situation of congress being unable to pass many significant or sweeping new laws isn't a bug, it's "the will of the people" (or at least those 'people'). > even when polling shows a strong majority consensus for a new direction. I'm skeptical that the things which have a strong majority consensus are also the things which congress can realistically act on and things which voters want congress to act on. And all three need to be true. There are quite a few things I personally think would make the world a better place if the majority of people would do them voluntarily BUT I would never want congress to force these good ideas on other consenting adults by law. So, I would answer a poll strongly in the affirmative about what people should do - but also not want congress to force anyone to do it - and polls never make that distinction.
- kelseydh 2y ago
  There are plenty of issues where there exists a strong majority consensus for a certain course of action that Congress hasn't acted on. The sad fact is that the opinions of what 90% of Americans think have been found to have essentially no impact at all on what Congress does. Summary: https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem-tmp https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem-tmp Paper: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
tpmoney 2y ago
> In fairness, this situation emerges because Congress has proven broadly incapable of passing or updating laws, even when polling shows a strong majority consensus for a new direction. I disagree. I think the TikTok ban itself has proven congress can absolutely pass laws when it wants to. Congress can do its job when it’s in their interests to do so. But the voting public generally doesn’t hold them to their responsibilities. We’re more comfortable with the speed of executive orders rather than the security of the legislative process. Sure, congress had ridiculously and historically low approval ratings… and yet the incumbents keep getting re-elected. I would argue the recent successes of the various “tea party” candidates (both electorally and legislatively) is the result of some part of the voting public deciding to hold their candidates responsible for their jobs. That their successes are not necessarily in the interests of the majority is a consequence of the majority not holding their own candidates responsible for their jobs

mrandish 2y ago

Agreed. The drug enforcement example is a good one and there are a bunch of others too. > the entire political landscape will change as some laws become unenforced and others are suddenly enforced with enthusiasm. Yes, the expansion of powers which recent presidents have engineered is deeply worrying. Each president (from both parties) has used everything they inherited from the previous president and then each has expanded their powers a little more with no clear authority to do so. James Madison would be appalled at the scope of today's presidential powers, as would all the founders (except maybe Alexander Hamilton who wanted to make the presidency a lifetime office and sort-of king-like - although maybe even Hamilton would be wondering if his Imperial presidency has gone a little too far :-))

wqaatwt 2y ago
On the other hand some of the founding father would probably be proud how dysfunctional and corrupt the Federal government is becoming though. Especially they’d welcome the politicization of the civil service and the return of the spoils system.