[AngryData]

Why are they not able to not enforce the law? The right for law enforcing entities and persons to not enforce the law due to personal discretion has been upheld many times in the past. Cops don't have to do it, prosecutors don't have to do it, not even judges have to do it although they almost always do because otherwise it creates friction between prosecution and the judge and the judge is likely to get booted for it eventually because successful prosecutions is how law enforcement and courts earn most of their money and unsuccessful arrests and prosecutions is how they lose money. I don't see how or why the executive branch is under any obligations to enforce any laws, feds don't often enforce marijuana laws in legal states despite being federally illegal still is an easy example.

The only real check against the president/executive branch is the legislative branch having the power to impeach the president and get them replaced, or by legislatively dismantling or changing the internal rules of a department. They lose their jobs, but aren't liable for anything or breaking any laws I know of. Just the same as states can boot out judges or prosecutors if they don't like how they operate, and police departments can fire officers if they don't like how they operate. At no point did cops or prosecutors or judges break the law by not enforcing the law, they merely piss off the state that is funding them and now losing additional money due to lack of enforcement and prosecution, and I don't know how the president or executive branch is any different.

[llamaimperative]

Go look it up instead of having me explain it to you. You're just verbosely asserting your opinion, and at least in the US, your opinion does not map to how the law actually works.

US Constitution Section 2 Article 3: "[The President]... shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

[sethammons]

So when past presidents have said they wont prosecute marijuana laws, what was that?

Your argument reminds me of the clip where the guy who had his license revoked for DUI is surprised when the car starts anyway. Just because a law says a thing, a person still has to action something. If the boss says don't do it, you don't do it. Don't rightly matter if the law says you should.

[llamaimperative]

> So when past presidents have said they wont prosecute marijuana laws, what was that?

Can you cite an example? If you're talking about the Biden admin, here is what the AG said:

"I do not think it the best use of the Department’s limited resources to pursue prosecutions of those who are complying with the laws in states that have legalized and are effectively regulating marijuana..."

I.e. exactly what I said is defensible in certain scenarios – and indeed must be defended, potentially in court. It is not POTUS simply saying "I won't do it."

[kelnos]

I'm not sure how you can hold that position; the AG is the arm of the president. If the AG says "I won't do it", then that is, by extension, the president saying the same.

And I don't think Garland's longer, winding way of saying what he said doesn't reduce to "I won't do it".

[llamaimperative]

I have explained the difference already and cited specific examples. It’s a you problem if you’re trying to interpret the words another way.

[bdangubic]

you missed few US government and US history classes growing up, eh? :)

[sanderjd]

You're the one who has this wrong, and now you're being rude about it.

The enforcement of the law is not at the president's discretion. That would make Congress powerless. Congress is not powerless.

[sanderjd]

So under this logic, the president can decide not to enforce the laws that require they and their family, friends, associates, and allies to pay taxes?

Don't think so!