3 ms·
Sorry, I don't buy this line of reasoning. The President's (and, by extension, the whole Executive branch's) duty is to 'faithfully execute' the laws. I can't
by gergles 14y ago
Sorry, I don't buy this line of reasoning. The President's (and, by extension, the whole Executive branch's) duty is to 'faithfully execute' the laws.
I can't see how a rational person would read this clause as pushing some sort of obligation on the Executive to defend laws against challenges in the judicial system. That moves beyond 'execution' by several steps.
(That said, I appreciate the pointer and can see how people could interpret the clause in that way. I disagree that it is a correct interpretation, but there's plenty of room for different opinions.)
- rayiner 14y agoIt goes back to a lawyer's duty to prosecute his case fully. I'm in violation of my obligations if I don't argue for any justifiable interpretation of the law that might favor my client--I don't get to not do so just because I don't think that interpretation is the correct one. It's not my job to pick the correct interpretation, that's the court's job. That's pretty much how the DOJ views their obligations to Congress.