PDA

View Full Version : Difference between line-item veto and choosing not to enforce parts of law??



socialize_me
11-13-2008, 08:08 PM
Okay so the line-item veto has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the President doesn't do it anymore; however, the President is the highest executive in the nation and determines how to enforce the law. If line-item vetoes are unconstitutional, what's to stop him from having a de facto line-item veto by simply refusing to enforce a part of a bill he doesn't like?
ItsTime
11-13-2008, 08:21 PM
Because it is still law just not enforced? The other way makes it so there is no law? Both should be illegal.
dude58677
11-13-2008, 09:41 PM
Because it is still law just not enforced? The other way makes it so there is no law? Both should be illegal.

Not enforcing is pardoning. If a President enacts an Executive Order not to enforce drug laws, he is pardoning the entrie United States of America from drug crimes.
Aratus
11-14-2008, 08:28 AM
institutional footdragging and lack of use and enforcement is historically endemic...
powerofreason
11-14-2008, 08:33 AM
If I were president there's plenty of laws I would tell the attorney general not to enforce. I would also immediately pardon everyone convicted of non-violent drug offenses. Who cares if its technically legal or not? Its the right thing to do.
ItsTime
11-14-2008, 08:37 AM
Not enforcing is pardoning. If a President enacts an Executive Order not to enforce drug laws, he is pardoning the entrie United States of America from drug crimes.

But its still law.
Brian4Liberty
11-14-2008, 09:24 AM
Who cares if its technically legal or not? Its the right thing to do.

Hey look, W is on the RPF... :rolleyes:
Truth Warrior
11-14-2008, 10:03 AM
Line item veto ruled unconstitutional, not enforcing the law, merely dereliction of duty.
powerofreason
11-14-2008, 10:30 AM
Hey look, W is on the RPF... :rolleyes:

Lol. You'd make a good hitler youth.
jblosser
11-14-2008, 10:38 AM
Because it is still law just not enforced? The other way makes it so there is no law? Both should be illegal.

The Executive branch choosing not to enforce a law is one of their checks on the Legislature. But it needs to be done through a strict Constitutional argument, not just because it doesn't fit their agenda or limits the powers they want to have.

And if the Legislature doesn't like it, their recourse is obvious.

Line Item veto gives the Executive direct Legislative power and is therefore unConstitutional.
Brian4Liberty
11-14-2008, 10:46 AM
Lol. You'd make a good hitler youth.

Ah, anybody who believes in the rule of law is a Nazi? Does that include Ron Paul?