[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.