[lukas099]

> That leaves the executive, and personally I don't see a problem with enforcement living there.

What if the executive just decides not to enforce the decisions of the legislative and judicial branches?

[_heimdall]

The legislative branch can pass a law requiring enforcement, likely within some specified parameters or timeline. If that passes and is constitutional, the courts could be tested and uphold the law.

[dmd]

Uphold the law ... how? Who actually does it? The courts can write as many orders as they want, but if they're ignored, they're powerless.

[_heimdall]

And that would be the point when congress impeaches the president for dereliction of duty.

The system is surprisingly simple, it just requires leaders willing to actually uphold it.

[dmd]

Ok, but (a) they won't, and (b) if they do, who carries out the actual removal of the president from power? ... oh, right, the executive branch, again. Oops.

[_heimdall]

If your concerns are only procedural, surely congress could fix that if they cared. If they actually had the vote to impeach they could likely have the voter to either pass new law or amend the constitution to ensure the removal is enforced.

[lukas099]

Or we could fix it now, before the Constitutional crisis, which is what we were talking about from the start.

[lukas099]

> The legislative branch can pass a law requiring enforcement

At this point the Executive is already ignoring the law.