2 ms·
The constitution requires that the executive "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The executive is not granted unlimited power to refuse to e
by UncleMeat 2y ago
The constitution requires that the executive "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The executive is not granted unlimited power to refuse to enforce the law.
However, courts have historically given the executive leeway in how it chooses to prioritize things and this has led to plenty of cases where the federal government has official policy to deprioritize enforcement of certain crimes. This has not been abused too much in the past but I'm not sure if that norm will hold in the future.
- scryers_bloom 2y agoUnfortunately, the Constitution's text has been increasingly under subject of debate. Trump himself is trying to redefine the meaning of the jurisdiction clause in birthright citizenship.
- shadowgovt 2y agoCorrect. In general, the backstop would be Congress saying "Enough" and threatening impeachment were the law not enforced. There have been interesting examples on both sides of the aisle of strategic non-enforcement. When states began legalizing marijuana, the law is quite clear (as per the supremacy clause) that federal law enforcement can still enforce the restrictions on growing and selling it. The Obama administration made extremely clear that within the states where it had been legalized, enforcing the federal law would be a career-limiting move for the relevant federal agents. AFAIK, every administration since has de-facto kept that policy regarding those states, even though Congress has never moved to make marijuana legal to use and distribute.