4 ms·

Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch.

by mlazos 1mo ago

skinfaxi 1mo ago
It's not always a bad thing though is it? Like when Obama stopped federal enforcement of weed laws.
- philipwhiuk 1mo ago
  Honestly it's still bad - it creates long term problems. Ignoring the democratic system (i.e not changing the law) just creates chaos.
  - TitaRusell 1mo ago
    Chaos aptly describes the US right now. And it suits people with money and connections. America is becoming the India that they hate.
- ryoshu 1mo ago
  That decision was expanding rights, not removing them.
  - koolba 1mo ago
    Yes it’s only bad when Trump does it. Refusing to enforce drug laws or immigration laws is perfectly fine. Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment.
    - r2_pilot 1mo ago
      >Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly?
      - koolba 1mo ago
        The prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment’s usage of “well-regulated” means “well-equipped” (i.e., they should have lots of guns!). It’s been repeatedly established through multiple SCOTUS interpretations that it’s just one example of why such rights shall not be infringed.
  - cheonc720 1mo ago
    > That decision was expanding rights, not removing them. Theft of personal property under US$10,000 is no longer a crime. Survival of the fittest, as nature intended. Expanded rights, therefore good.
    - mgkimsal 1mo ago
      Expanded rights for some at the direct expense of others. That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed.
      - cheonc720 1mo ago
        > That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed. Yes, they are the same category. In US$10,000 property damage, nobody is physically harmed. Here’s another example, expanded rights: Anyone holding a 401k, IRA, or pension can purchase single family homes and apartments inside the account, and pay zero capital gains tax and zero rental income tax. We expanded rights! Take a guess what this does to the homeless population.
        kappar 1mo ago
        > Anyone holding a 401k, IRA, or pension can purchase single family homes and apartments inside the account, and pay zero capital gains tax and zero rental income tax. I am not sure on pensions, but this is not true for a 401k. Only an IRA can be used without paying capital gains taxes for a home purchase. Including first time home buyers. Speaking from experience, I learned the hard way the benefit you are describing applies only to an IRA. To be clear, you are saying that theft of <10k is not a crime..? If you steal an iPad in an airport, you are charged with theft. I don't know where you got that idea. People are charged with theft for much less than 10k daily.
        1718627440 1mo ago
        How is damage to a property not physical?
  - skinfaxi 1mo ago
    I asked if it was always bad. It seems you agree that it is not always bad.
- mrguyorama 1mo ago
  That was still bad actually. A lot of "legal" weed business still lives in a state of weird limbo because of it.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
hammock 1mo ago
Isn’t that the whole definition of “executive branch”? They are given (by we the people) the power to choose how to execute the laws. And we elect them. The alternatives I can think of are for laws to be executed at the whim of an algorithm, a king, a more local executive like the governors of each state, or a more distant foreign executive like the UN
- throwway120385 1mo ago
  No, the executive branch has a responsibility to execute the law. It's not a privilege. We elected them to perform a duty on our behalf. Do you understand the difference?
  - skinfaxi 1mo ago
    Isn't discretion a foundational principle in the exercise of the executive's functions? Or is discretion reserved only for the judiciary?
    - mixdup 1mo ago
      The executive only has discretion if the law says they do. If the law says they must or shall do something, they must do that thing. If it says they MAY do something or otherwise explicitly gives them discretion in making a decision, then yeah, they have that discretion But it's not a given that they can just decide what laws they will or will not enforce or follow
    - estearum 1mo ago
      No. Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" The judiciary doesn't have discretion as in it has been "granted" discretion. It de facto has a high degree of discretion because the act of judging a case necessarily entails a judgment of the laws. Judicial review is a functional necessity. It's a necessary downstream consequence of simply having a Constitution as the supreme law. The analog to the executive is that the executive naturally has finite resources to enforce law, and so as a matter of functional necessity it has some degree of discretion. That is not discretion to say "I disagree with this law and so am choosing not to enforce it," but the discretion to say "there are other priorities that are more important."

Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch.

by mlazos 1mo ago

Laws should not be executed on the whim of the executive branch.

skinfaxi 1mo ago

It's not always a bad thing though is it? Like when Obama stopped federal enforcement of weed laws.

philipwhiuk 1mo ago
Honestly it's still bad - it creates long term problems. Ignoring the democratic system (i.e not changing the law) just creates chaos.
- TitaRusell 1mo ago
  Chaos aptly describes the US right now. And it suits people with money and connections. America is becoming the India that they hate.
ryoshu 1mo ago
That decision was expanding rights, not removing them.
- koolba 1mo ago
  Yes it’s only bad when Trump does it. Refusing to enforce drug laws or immigration laws is perfectly fine. Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment.
  - r2_pilot 1mo ago
    >Ditto for refusing to honor the 2nd amendment. Honoring it, no doubt, by restricting firearms to duly registered militia personnel as written in the plain text for all to see? What about the 14th Amendment section 3, also written plainly?
    - koolba 1mo ago
      The prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment’s usage of “well-regulated” means “well-equipped” (i.e., they should have lots of guns!). It’s been repeatedly established through multiple SCOTUS interpretations that it’s just one example of why such rights shall not be infringed.
- cheonc720 1mo ago
  > That decision was expanding rights, not removing them. Theft of personal property under US$10,000 is no longer a crime. Survival of the fittest, as nature intended. Expanded rights, therefore good.
  - mgkimsal 1mo ago
    Expanded rights for some at the direct expense of others. That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed.
    - cheonc720 1mo ago
      > That's not the same as simply expanding rights, unless you count other people being 'offended' in the same category as someone being physically assaulted or killed. Yes, they are the same category. In US$10,000 property damage, nobody is physically harmed. Here’s another example, expanded rights: Anyone holding a 401k, IRA, or pension can purchase single family homes and apartments inside the account, and pay zero capital gains tax and zero rental income tax. We expanded rights! Take a guess what this does to the homeless population.
      - kappar 1mo ago
        > Anyone holding a 401k, IRA, or pension can purchase single family homes and apartments inside the account, and pay zero capital gains tax and zero rental income tax. I am not sure on pensions, but this is not true for a 401k. Only an IRA can be used without paying capital gains taxes for a home purchase. Including first time home buyers. Speaking from experience, I learned the hard way the benefit you are describing applies only to an IRA. To be clear, you are saying that theft of <10k is not a crime..? If you steal an iPad in an airport, you are charged with theft. I don't know where you got that idea. People are charged with theft for much less than 10k daily.
      - 1718627440 1mo ago
        How is damage to a property not physical?
- skinfaxi 1mo ago
  I asked if it was always bad. It seems you agree that it is not always bad.
mrguyorama 1mo ago
That was still bad actually. A lot of "legal" weed business still lives in a state of weird limbo because of it.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

hammock 1mo ago

Isn’t that the whole definition of “executive branch”? They are given (by we the people) the power to choose how to execute the laws. And we elect them. The alternatives I can think of are for laws to be executed at the whim of an algorithm, a king, a more local executive like the governors of each state, or a more distant foreign executive like the UN

throwway120385 1mo ago
No, the executive branch has a responsibility to execute the law. It's not a privilege. We elected them to perform a duty on our behalf. Do you understand the difference?
- skinfaxi 1mo ago
  Isn't discretion a foundational principle in the exercise of the executive's functions? Or is discretion reserved only for the judiciary?
  - mixdup 1mo ago
    The executive only has discretion if the law says they do. If the law says they must or shall do something, they must do that thing. If it says they MAY do something or otherwise explicitly gives them discretion in making a decision, then yeah, they have that discretion But it's not a given that they can just decide what laws they will or will not enforce or follow
  - estearum 1mo ago
    No. Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution: "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" The judiciary doesn't have discretion as in it has been "granted" discretion. It de facto has a high degree of discretion because the act of judging a case necessarily entails a judgment of the laws. Judicial review is a functional necessity. It's a necessary downstream consequence of simply having a Constitution as the supreme law. The analog to the executive is that the executive naturally has finite resources to enforce law, and so as a matter of functional necessity it has some degree of discretion. That is not discretion to say "I disagree with this law and so am choosing not to enforce it," but the discretion to say "there are other priorities that are more important."