# The President … shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 22, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910 "2016-01-22T21:23:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/21 "2016-01-23T15:38:40Z")
Cities don’t have jurisdictions spelled out in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/22 "2016-01-23T15:52:12Z")
For the minimum wage example to be analogous, President Cruz would have to decide not to enforce that law against some \*subset \*of employers. Once properly framed, it’s obvious why the argument lacks merit. President Cruz (or any other President) is forced to only enforce laws against some subset of lawbreakers. The only question is whether the President gets to set rational priorities or must simply enforce the law randomly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/23 "2016-01-23T15:54:35Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > You’re flipping burgers for $8 and the minimum wage is say $10. Are you going to have money to hire a lawyer? Pro bono. But seriously, if the president decided not to enforce MW laws, there would be any number of advocacy groups that would be willing to fund the cause of someone, somewhere and turning it into a class action suit. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/24 "2016-01-23T15:55:48Z")
FLSA litigation is fee-shifting, IIRC. So there are plenty of lawyers taking wage cases without payment from clients. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/25 "2016-01-23T17:45:16Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > For the minimum wage example to be analogous, President Cruz would have to decide not to enforce that law against some \*subset \*of employers. > > Once properly framed, it’s obvious why the argument lacks merit. President Cruz (or any other President) is forced to only enforce laws against some subset of lawbreakers. The only question is whether the President gets to set rational priorities or must simply enforce the law randomly. I agree, the focus needs to be on a subset of potentially impacted folks. Examples with the minimum wage aren’t as good since there is a person or group being harmed (minimum wage earners) whereas in the immigration case, there is no one directly being harmed beyond generalized public services being impacted. I think the above taxation example is a better one. What if tax evasion or even tax liabilities below a certain threshold were not going to be enforced? Or what about folks who belong to a certain non-protected class, like veterans or i don’t know, people who adopt in a given year. Would it be within the President’s powers to relax all federal taxation for these folks? I think relaxing enforcement against those groups could fall under the umbrella of resource management, however with so broad a brush could that be held as “faithfully” executing? I think that such selective enforcement is a bad thing. I don’t know if there is any real remedy beyond impeachment and impeachment is too blunt an instrument IMO. I also acknowledge that the president’s power to pardon is near absolute for federal offenses so would could potentially be restricted en masse could be enacted individually. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/26 "2016-01-23T18:04:21Z")
I agree that selective enforcement of the laws by the President is a real issue. But I think there is a solution short of impeachment: more legislation. I see no reason why Congress can’t pass a statute that says that the President must prioritize deportation (or IRS audits, or whatever) using certain criteria. The issue is just whether there’s some \*exclusive \*Article II power to set prosecutorial priorities. I guess I’m not prepared to say for certain that there is no such power as an empirical matter, but I don’t have a problem in theory if Congress says the President must focus exclusively on deporting widows and children (or whatever they would choose). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/27 "2016-01-23T20:56:27Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > A contingency fee class action suit is highly likely in the case of minimum wage, virtually impossible in the immigration case. I’m not sure that I agree. Perhaps a large employer might inspire a class action, but a smaller employer wouldn’t, and in any event the employees affected might have different enough claims that the common questions would not predominate. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > FLSA litigation is fee-shifting, IIRC. So there are plenty of lawyers taking wage cases without payment from clients. This, however, makes good sense. I had forgotten (if I ever knew!) that FSLA actions allowed recovery of fees. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2016, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/28 "2016-01-23T23:15:23Z")
I don’t see how treating it as an actual limitation could work. What criteria could be set forth to see if this provision is being violated? How would you prove unfaithfulness? In the present case, it could be very much a budgetary issue, prioritizing those undocumented immigrants who cause the most problems. Can you come up with a case where this is not the case, so we could perhapse come up with limits? All the scenarios I can think of would be flat out impeachable offenses, and definitely serious enough for impeachment. There’d have to be blatant claims of disregarding the law, or abrogation of laws in general. I also will add that I think it weird for this to be added unless at least someone on the Court thinks there should be limits, so it may be interesting to see what they are. But I doubt that opinion will be in the majority. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/29 "2016-01-24T04:59:41Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > For the minimum wage example to be analogous, President Cruz would have to decide not to enforce that law against some \*subset \*of employers. > > Once properly framed, it’s obvious why the argument lacks merit. President Cruz (or any other President) is forced to only enforce laws against some subset of lawbreakers. The only question is whether the President gets to set rational priorities or must simply enforce the law randomly. No one has disputed the President’s focus on felons and re-entries. What is at dispute is whether the President can actually license lawbreakers. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/30 "2016-01-24T05:10:59Z")
“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/31 "2016-01-24T06:24:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No one has disputed the President’s focus on felons and re-entries. What is at dispute is whether the President can actually license lawbreakers. What happens when the law is contradictory? What happens when a law says, “When two trains meet at a crossing, each must pause until the other has gone?” Specifically: the U.S. is not going to expel twelve million people from its borders. We know that isn’t going to happen. Not even the Republicans are arguing for this. Millions of people must be licensed, in some way, to stay. Obama tried to “regularize” an impossibly irregular situation. As with the prisoners in Guantanamo, we’ve gotten ourselves into a weird limbo where people are unclassified and perhaps unclassifiable. Millions of people are not being deported…but denied jobs and services. That can’t continue. It’s impossible. I think credit goes to Obama for trying to solve the actual problem, rather than going along with the self-contradictory double-think that applies now. The U.S. cannot host millions of “non-persons,” a ghost population. If mass deportations were actually on the table, that would be one thing, but they simply aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/32 "2016-01-24T07:25:16Z")
We’re not going to catch every tax evader. This does not mean we legalize tax evasion. The nature of breaking the law is that you live in fear of getting caught someday. I see no reason why illegal border crossers and visa overstayers should be freed from this fear, any more than people who don’t report their tips or side job income. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/33 "2016-01-24T12:40:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No one has disputed the President’s focus on felons and re-entries. What is at dispute is whether the President can actually license lawbreakers. Your first statement is incorrect. Your second statement is incomplete. Lots of people, including the petitioners in the legal case we’re discussing, have disputed the President’s ability to prioritize deportation in the way he did. And, while employment authorization is among the things in dispute, it is far from the only thing. Check out the Fifth Circuit’s lengthy opinion for confirmation of both points. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/34 "2016-01-24T13:02:03Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > What happens when the law is contradictory? What happens when a law says, “When two trains meet at a crossing, each must pause until the other has gone?” > > Specifically: the U.S. is not going to expel twelve million people from its borders. We know that isn’t going to happen. Not even the Republicans are arguing for this. > > Millions of people must be licensed, in some way, to stay. Obama tried to “regularize” an impossibly irregular situation. > > As with the prisoners in Guantanamo, we’ve gotten ourselves into a weird limbo where people are unclassified and perhaps unclassifiable. Millions of people are not being deported…but denied jobs and services. That can’t continue. It’s impossible. > > I think credit goes to Obama for trying to solve the actual problem, rather than going along with the self-contradictory double-think that applies now. The U.S. cannot host millions of “non-persons,” a ghost population. If mass deportations were actually on the table, that would be one thing, but they simply aren’t. You are overstating the “impossibility” that Obama faces. Just because he lacks the desire to enforce the deportation laws does not make it impossible to do. Even if it could be shown that Congress isn’t really serious about deportation, the law remains the same. As he took an oath to do, Obama must in good faith attempt to enforce the law to the best of his ability and with the resources allocated to him. He may not use this discretion as a pretext to amend a law he disagrees with. That’s the rub in this thread. Your point about having a “ghost population” is well taken, and is a problem that needs to be addressed. Like all other problems in our society, it is one for the legislative branch and not a decree from the monarch. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/35 "2016-01-24T13:28:58Z")
Exactly. This country has all sorts of problems. And there are no plans to eliminate our “ghost population”, only reduce it by about half. The Senate immigration bill only legalizes people who have been here a couple years at least, and border crossers and visa overstayers who come in after are SOL absent another bill legalizing them as well. So the President can’t use the excuse that he’s solving the problem of a ghost population because his plan only reduces the size of it. After which it continues to grow again. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/36 "2016-01-24T13:32:38Z")
Don’t confuse arguments made on a message board with the actual arguments in dispute in this case. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/37 "2016-01-24T13:43:31Z")
Wasn’t the original issue that the proposed regulation wasn’t put through the commentary period first? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2016, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/38 "2016-01-24T14:04:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Wasn’t the original issue that the proposed regulation wasn’t put through the commentary period first? That is among the arguments made by the State of Texas. It is not the sole argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/39 "2016-01-25T01:43:59Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I don’t see how treating it as an actual limitation could work. What criteria could be set forth to see if this provision is being violated? How would you prove unfaithfulness? The courts could - the provision of acting in good faith is a common requirement in commerce transactions and is justiciable. There would have to be a determination made as to intent of actions in question - if they truly were taken in relation to resource management I think that would be fine. If the actions are taken to subvert the law then I think that would be acting in bad faith. * * * Let’s say a future president really doesn’t agree with the tax rate that a particular group is paying - it seems that the president could unilaterally determine that rate X is more appropriate than rate Y, and enforce tax penalties only if rate Y is not paid, and not rate X. What could stop a president from doing this, short of impeachment? I am really curious why this question was added. I do not know how many votes it takes to add a question either. It allegedly takes 4 votes to grant cert, anyone know how many it takes to add a question like this? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910/40 "2016-01-25T02:03:19Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I am really curious why this question was added. I do not know how many votes it takes to add a question either. It allegedly takes 4 votes to grant cert, anyone know how many it takes to add a question like this? Interesting question. We only know about the rule requiring four votes from times it has been mentioned in opinions and references in the justices writing–it doesn’t appear in any formal procedure. I don’t know if they’ve ever said how the voting works for actually framing the questions. But it’s hard to imagine it wouldn’t also just be four votes as to each question certified, since any other rule would pretty much eviscerate the rule of four. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-president-shall-take-care-that-the-laws-be-faithfully-executed/743910.md?page=3)