[ikiris]

How do you figure? The explicit domain of enforcement is the executive branch, so if the new guy coming in says something akin to "They've made their decision, let them enforce it" that's somewhat by design even if you may not agree with it.

The system was designed with these checks and balances in mind explicitly.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if the new guy coming in says something akin to "They've made their decision, let them enforce it" that's somewhat by design even if you may not agree with it

It’s absolutely not. Which is why non-enforcement doesn’t release liability; if you break a law that the President declines to enforce, people can sue the government to force enforcement today and the next President can enforce tomorrow.

[llamaimperative]

And in this case they'll just accrue (massive) fines.

[ajmurmann]

The ultimate consequence of that interpretation would mean that the executive does whatever it wants since all enforcement of court rulings or laws fall to the executive.

[ikiris]

Yes, this is how government works if the judicial + legislative branches have no enforcement power. That is not at all how this government works however. I suggest taking an American civics course if you want to learn more.

[pixl97]

> how this government works however.

I mean, with some of the decisions by SCOTUS in the last few years we should really be at the point of "This government works?"

[afiori]

Prosecutorial discretion is not a "check and balance" it is a cost cutting approach that allows worse laws to last longer

[bearcobra]

Yeah, I think that's bad. Some level of prosecutorial discretion is obviously needed but furthering a state of affairs where laws are meaningless depending on if you have the favor of the executive is dangerous. The checks and balances in the passing of the law make sense but there should be a strong norm towards actually enforcing things and pushing the legislative branch to change the law if there is something wrong with it or the judiciary to rule on if it is actually legal.