If a law has not been repealed

[malaise]

can a President sabotage it and unravel it?

I have asked this before but need an answer.

[msongs]

1. since congress is a willing stooge and accomplice many things are possible

[jberryhill]

2. As you might guess, the question does not reduce to that simple a proposition

Do you mean, was President Obama required to deport anyone found to be an undocumented immigrant?

Do you mean that President Obama was required to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act and/or to have the DoJ argue for its validity in court?

Or do you mean that some other president is testing the limits of executive implementation or lack thereof, of a particular statute?

[DVRacer]

4. Those fell under prosecutorial discretion n/t

[jberryhill]

6. Yes, but as is compulsory in the "WTF is Malaise on about now" forum...

We really don't know what Malaise is talking about.

Is she talking about slow-walking implementation of Russia Sanctions, or is she talking about acts over which the ACA does provide the executive with discretionary maneuvering room.

I was observing that as a highly-generalized proposition, the question has no one answer.

[malaise]

12. I was asking in response to his sabotage of Obamacare

and your response was clear

[jberryhill]

16. Oh, now there you've gone an spoiled the mystery

But did you HEAR what that JERK just said on CNN?

[malaise]

17. No - what did he say? n/t

[unblock]

3. executive orders cannot remove a law from the books, but they can undermine them in certain ways.

first to note, any executive order can be reversed by the next president, so in theory none of this is permanent.

second, executive orders can't cheat people out of their rights under the law. if you're entitled to a subsidy, you can sue to get it if you have to.

that said, executive order can direct the bureaucracy not to enforce some things prohibited by law, or not to seek penalties due under the law.


so yes, executive order can undermine a law, but only certain laws in certain ways.

[Thomas Hurt]

5. laws have regulatory structure put in place to carry out the goals of the law...

this is done by the fed agencies. Trump has been screwing with the regulatory structure of Trumpcare since he took office. Today's EO is just the latest.

O care has already been violated and changed, it is not O care anymore.

[WinkyDink]

7. Sure, if he wants to risk impeachment by breaking his sworn oath "to faithfully execute..." yada,

yada.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And " the Office of President of the United States" is this:

"The President is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws written by Congress and, to that end, appoints the heads of the federal agencies, including the Cabinet."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/executive-branch

[malaise]

9. That was my understanding but I guess based on that objective lawyer's view

they all test the limits

[onenote]

19. Not much of a risk.

[malaise]

8. Thank you all n/t

[jaysunb]

10. The courts will decide. n/t

[Lee-Lee]

11. The same way DACA was implemented

The law is typically written in a way that gives a degree of latitude in how it is interpreted and how it is enforced, on the federal level that discretion lies with the executive branch that is tasked with enforcement and implementation of the laws.

Immigration law never changed with DACA, the only change was that the executive branch decided they wouldn't prosecute certain groups of people.

One can also look to how the NLRB has interpreted labor law under GOP and Democratic administrations to see how the law can not change but how it's implemented and enforced can.

[left-of-center2012]

13. By not enforcing it?

Albuquerque voters voted to raise the city's minimum wage a few years ago,
but the city's GOP administration refused to enforce it.

They said if an employee is not being paid the new minimum wage,
the employee can get a lawyer and sue his/her boss.

How long do you think the employee would have a job?

[malaise]

15. That is scary

Thanks

[saidsimplesimon]

14. malaise

You know the answer, oui or nyet?

Sessions is a bigot, ergo appointing bigots to the justice department is a fait accompli.

[onenote]

18. President's can and do choose how to "execute" laws all the time

Sometimes they execute them aggressively. Sometimes not so much.

If the President ignores an express Congressional mandate, an injured party could go to court and seek an order of mandamus directly the President to fulfill the mandate.

But it the President wants to take an action that he is not expressly barred by law from taking (or not take an action that he is not expressly required by law to take), there really isn't much anyone can do about it short of getting Congress to tighten up the law.

So if you're thinking that Trump's executive order undercutting Obamacare is subject to challenge, it would be only if it could be shown that Congress expressly barred him from taking that step.