BenNatuf
Limit Authority
wrongA President gets a say in laws that land on his desk to sign or veto. Not laws that were passed by Congress and a previous President.where did you learn that? Because he certainly does and courts have upheld it over and over again. He doesn't get the final say, but he does get the first bite of the apple. He gets the third bite too, but thats another story.
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTEUNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES This memorandum discusses the President's constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.Myers is very nearly decisive of the issue [of Presidential denial of the validity of statutes]. Myers holds that the President's constitutional duty does not require him to execute unconstitutional statutes; nor does it require him to execute them provisionally, against the day that they are declared unconstitutional by the courts.
I don't see how the Department of Justice can just decide to defend or not defend cases brought against laws. Its ALREADY law, so its their job to defend and enforce it. The President gets to appoint the head of the DOJ, he does not have the authority to micro manage it and tell the agency to stop enforcing/defending certain laws he cherry picks.[/quote]Who said anything about cherry picking? If the president in the course of reviewing a law to determine how to enforce it can find a way to enforce it that he thinks IS constitutional, then he is bound to do so. That is not saying if he doesn't like it and can find a way to determine its unconstitutional he should, its not saying that at all, its quite the opposite. he should make every aytempt to find a way to enforce it within the confines of the constitution. If however, no matter how he tries he cannot, he is bound by oathe not to. It is not something a President should do lightly, but in the case that he honestly believes it and can find no way to reconcile the law in order to enforce it, he should not enforce it. To do so is anethema to the constitution and that itself is the gist of marbury.If he believed they were unconstituional he would be acting within his authority, on the other hand if he believed they were constituional and failed to defend them it would be a derriliction of duty. BTW, I'm not a lib, I'm likely more conservative than you are, but my opinion of Presidetial authority doesn't change with the letter after their name.
It's not a precedent, been done by almost every administration, you don't usually hear about it though, because they don't usually announce it.
They've already been provided by others in posts aboveProvide some examples then?
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO DECLINE TO EXECUTEUNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTES This memorandum discusses the President's constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.
wouldn't be worth squat, the president does not have the authority to exempt people from laws he believes to be constitutional. He does have the authority to pardon them for breaking them though.
Did I say what he was doing was constitutional? That would be one of the reasons the law is being challenged.Then how is the current President getting away with issuing "waivers" to whomever he deems worthy? He is not pardoning them from convictions.