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
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?
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.
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?
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
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?
Isn't discretion a foundational principle in the exercise of the executive's functions? Or is discretion reserved only for the judiciary?
It's not always a bad thing though is it? Like when Obama stopped federal enforcement of weed laws.
That decision was expanding rights, not removing them.
I asked if it was always bad. It seems you agree that it is not always bad.
> 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.
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.
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.
>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?
That was still bad actually. A lot of "legal" weed business still lives in a state of weird limbo because of it.
Honestly it's still bad - it creates long term problems. Ignoring the democratic system (i.e not changing the law) just creates chaos.