If Lew Rockwell (for example) were president today, would he be required to enforce laws he disagreed with? What are the obligations of mayors, governors, and presidents? What discretion is given them to choose which laws to enforce? May a president be impeached if he refuses to enforce the drug war (for example)?
*bump*
Individualist: *bump*
?
What discretion is given to an executive over what laws are to be enforced in his jurisdiction? Would a president be allowed to unilaterally suspend the Drug War? Would he be subject to impeachment if he did?
The president is not able to directly introduce legislation, but assuming a libertarian president was elected then it's also safe to assume that a large portion of his political party would be present in the Senate and the House and would support him. As a result, he could influence the introduction of legislation which could legalize drugs (ending the "war on drugs"), et cetera. Since the president does not literally fight the war on drugs himself, and policemen only do what prior anti-crime legislation has forced them to do (they uphold the law, in other words), a president cannot just put an end to the war on drugs by saying so.
On the other hand, the president can limit legislation which could increase centralization of power by using his veto. But, the veto can be overturned with 2/3 Congress vote.
the president could spend everyday arranging pardons for those convicted of drug offences, and roll back the war that way?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: The president is not able to directly introduce legislation, but assuming a libertarian president was elected then it's also safe to assume that a large portion of his political party would be present in the Senate and the House and would support him. As a result, he could influence the introduction of legislation which could legalize drugs (ending the "war on drugs"), et cetera. Since the president does not literally fight the war on drugs himself, and policemen only do what prior anti-crime legislation has forced them to do (they uphold the law, in other words), a president cannot just put an end to the war on drugs by saying so. On the other hand, the president can limit legislation which could increase centralization of power by using his veto. But, the veto can be overturned with 2/3 Congress vote.
nirgrahamUK: the president could spend everyday arranging pardons for those convicted of drug offences, and roll back the war that way?
individualist, everybody on this thread so far is talking about the real power that the Constitution gives the President. Bush decreasing enforcement of immigration laws, how did he do this? The President in the U.S. is so rogue right now and does so much anymore that isn't even Constitutional. Bush went to War in Iraq without an official ok from Congress. Congress just supplied him with the money, but never signed onto the war to save their political careers. The main culprit in the State now is Congress. Congress pretty much never does it's job anymore. They've stepped back and let the President do whatever he wants. Even the whole "War on Drugs", I don't think there's an actual Congressional Legislation of Declared War on Drugs or Drug Lords, it's all politicial show. Cause if there was, then a constitutional President being Commander and Chief of the military could call back all military forces right now and call it a strategic move. The war would still be on-going due to Congress legislation but the President can just say he or she is moving troops around to what he finds to be the best military move. Could even call it a defensive posture and bring them all home. President, as any branch in the State, swears to uphold the Constitution. So the President could also argue all day and night about all the unConstitutional activities going on and then anything that happens within the Constitutional realm of Executive Power (aka Presidential Power) he can do to reinforce the Constitution. All branches of the State can do whatever is within their power to enforce the Constitution. That's what all branches are beholden to, meaning, the President doesn't have to listen to Congress or Judicial Branch at all if the President finds they are being unConstitutional. Yet, the President can only enforce his or her interpretation of the Constitution by the powers given to the Executive Branch.
You'll find the State hasn't followed the constitution for a long time in most instances. He could be threatened with impeachment all day and night, but the winner in that State argument is given in the answer of this question: "Who followed the Constitution?". Doesn't mean the State will point out their obligations to follow the Constitution in the argument, just means the U.S. State's only existence is to defend the rights of the people outlined in the Constitution, nothing more or less, but the U.S. State quit doing that a long time ago. Sometimes it quit doing that even when George Washington was president.
wilderness: individualist, everybody on this thread so far is talking about the real power that the Constitution gives the President. Bush decreasing enforcement of immigration laws, how did he do this? The President in the U.S. is so rogue right now and does so much anymore that isn't even Constitutional. Bush went to War in Iraq without an official ok from Congress. Congress just supplied him with the money, but never signed onto the war to save their political careers. The main culprit in the State now is Congress. Congress pretty much never does it's job anymore. They've stepped back and let the President do whatever he wants. Even the whole "War on Drugs", I don't think there's an actual Congressional Legislation of Declared War on Drugs or Drug Lords, it's all politicial show. Cause if there was, then a constitutional President being Commander and Chief of the military could call back all military forces right now and call it a strategic move. The war would still be on-going due to Congress legislation but the President can just say he or she is moving troops around to what he finds to be the best military move. Could even call it a defensive posture and bring them all home. President, as any branch in the State, swears to uphold the Constitution. So the President could also argue all day and night about all the unConstitutional activities going on and then anything that happens within the Constitutional realm of Executive Power (aka Presidential Power) he can do to reinforce the Constitution. All branches of the State can do whatever is within their power to enforce the Constitution. That's what all branches are beholden to, meaning, the President doesn't have to listen to Congress or Judicial Branch at all if the President finds they are being unConstitutional. Yet, the President can only enforce his or her interpretation of the Constitution by the powers given to the Executive Branch. You'll find the State hasn't followed the constitution for a long time in most instances. He could be threatened with impeachment all day and night, but the winner in that State argument is given in the answer of this question: "Who followed the Constitution?". Doesn't mean the State will point out their obligations to follow the Constitution in the argument, just means the U.S. State's only existence is to defend the rights of the people outlined in the Constitution, nothing more or less, but the U.S. State quit doing that a long time ago. Sometimes it quit doing that even when George Washington was president.
Andrew Jackson: the Court has made it's decision, now let's see them enforce it
the Court has made it's decision, now let's see them enforce it
Individualist: So the president has no Constitutional authority to choose which laws to enforce? Why is the president called the "chief executive" if he has no role in enforcing the laws? Or is his enforcement role just in commanding the armed forces (and little else)?
So the president has no Constitutional authority to choose which laws to enforce? Why is the president called the "chief executive" if he has no role in enforcing the laws? Or is his enforcement role just in commanding the armed forces (and little else)?
The president is to enforce the Constitution that's it. All the branches are. They are to make Constitutional arguments about their positions, but they don't anymore and if they do it's for show. President has the military to enforce the laws, but that's limited due to so many other Constitutional outlines the President can't overstep. Law enforcement actually falls to the individual States, but even then the main law enforcement falls to individuals namely a sheriff. The Constitution doesn't give any actual enforcement agency the ability to enforce laws. It's been up to the people since this countries inception. That's why cities have police. Cities are communities that arose to fulfill the supposed needs of their occupants. Now if a city or State was not following the Constitution the President could quite possibly step in and enforce the Constitution will the military in extreme cases. But this country is very far from that. Now the Executive has a Justice Department Cabinet member to police this country. The President has the FBI and the CIA at his disposal. IRS agents carry weapons. Read the Constitution and let me know where it mentions any of these positions. The President has expanded his power usually by bringing up one clause in the Constitution:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
This part of the Constitution is directed towards Congress so that's why the Cabinet positions are given the ok by the Senate. The president goes to Congress says this is "necessary and proper" and Congress bows to the president. This clause was even recently argued against Ron P. by James Baker in a Committee hearing over the continuing use of War overseas this year and Baker pointed out this has been the long term argument by the Executive Branch from the beginning of this country. The "necessary and proper" clause. They usually pick one part of the Constitution and use that as leverage and take it all out of context to achieve their means. It's how the State expands. The first central bank in the U.S. was given the ok by Chief Justice Marshal cause he pointed out this same clause and said the central bank is "necessary and proper" so the Supreme Court said it was Constitutional. Shortly thereafter Thomas Jefferson resigned from being Secretary of the State calling the action unConstitutional but Hamilton won that debate and the first central bank was established. Same ole' game over and over again. There is no mention of bank anywhere in the Constitution and that one clause gives unlimited power to the State, which is counter to the whole reason the Constitution was even drawn up - to limit the State, and protect the rights and freedoms of the people. But as always the State turns it around and just expands it powers and infringes on the natural rights of individuals.
Now if a city or State was not following the Constitution the President could quite possibly step in and enforce the Constitution will the military in extreme cases.
Wouldn't the Constitutional method be just to deny such a state representation in both Congress and the electoral college?
Individualist: Now if a city or State was not following the Constitution the President could quite possibly step in and enforce the Constitution will the military in extreme cases. Wouldn't the Constitutional method be just to deny such a state representation in both Congress and the electoral college?
yes, but the extreme cases I was referring to would be in instances that this has been done already and then these state's or cities start attacking the Constitutional states and cities. But then again at this point, those cities and states are not obviously following the Constitution, and as you point out, have been kicked out of the Union, and are now not adherents to property rights... but then again, isn't that the Federal government and the 50 states right now - non-adherents to property rights. And thus the current debacle.
It's more about what is happening in the State is called criminal. And thus I don't expect and see any near excellent individuals in the State, of course, other than Ron P. or is probably as near to excellence as any member of the State could quite possible become. It goes to show how far and few between the State actually accepts somebody of good principles.
Surely there is a check on the executive's power to grant amnesty and issue pardons. But what are the circumstances, if any, that the executive may be impeached for this? Also, can the legislature overturn any pardons issued by the executive?
I guess a President can say he simply won't enforce Congress's laws. Isn't that the principle behind signing statements anyway? Whether or not this is Constitutional is and whether or not that would get you impeached by a very angry Congress is a whole other matter.
Political Atheists Blog