Judge Andrew Napolitano brings up a very interesting point

[Vanguard101]

In this video, Judge points out the fact that the pres is supposed to enforce the laws Congress rights whether he agrees with them or disagrees. Couldn't this make any president inconsistent with his/her own philosophy because of the role of a president?

 

[Acala]

The President has a duty to NOT enforce laws he feels are unconstitutional. Otherwise, he should execute the legislature's enactments as written. Part of the problem is that Congress has delegated vast authority to the President. They essentially say, for example, "enforce a permit system for water pollution" and hand him a bunch of money. Then EPA, under the President's authority, builds its empire of arbitrary rules.

 

[idiom]

Imagine if Congress was passing Civil rights legislation that the Senate was killing, or Obama was vetoing.

Way more effective than the bollocks they are playing with now.

 

[Yung_Hustler]

Imagine if Congress was passing Civil rights legislation that the Senate was killing, or Obama was vetoing.

Way more effective than the bollocks they are playing with now.

This is what the House needs to be doing. The GOP should be passing some of Rand Paul's proposals with regards to restoring civic rights to non-violent felons once they have been rehabilitated and making crack carry the same penalties as powder cocaine. This is how the GOP can reach into the African-American community. I'd love to see Obama try and veto that legislation.

 

[JohnWeeks613]

I don't see how nonviolent convicts some how have a superior presidence over violent convicts. I spent just over 8.5 years in prison, and the most violence in the prisons from my perspective were the ones that were not convicted of dangerous felonies. GO FIGURE!

 

[Dianne]

I just have to say when Obama slipped into "Super Fly" with negro dialect (as Harry Reid would call it) ; and his paid audience applauding I became so embarrassed this country voted this fool in. What will be his next Executive Order??? Let me guess.. He will remove term limits for a President?

He is a sick man, scares me to death ... and now that we know his CIA has been spying on the Senate and Congress; it is clear they have enough dirt on all of them to blackmail them to follow this monstrosity and his husband Michael. So don't be surprised if we have this "thing" a new King.

 

[Acala]

I don't see how nonviolent convicts some how have a superior presidence over violent convicts. I spent just over 8.5 years in prison, and the most violence in the prisons from my perspective were the ones that were not convicted of dangerous felonies. GO FIGURE!

Many nonviolent convicts shouldn't even be in prison. Unless there was an unwilling victim, there WAS no crime. As for the difference betweeen violent and non-violent, I guess the public views criminals that might kill them as more of a problem than criminals who just sneak away with their money. And I agree.

 

[TommyJeff]

In this video, Judge points out the fact that the pres is supposed to enforce the laws Congress rights whether he agrees with them or disagrees. Couldn't this make any president inconsistent with his/her own philosophy because of the role of a president?

I don't like the term "inconsistent" it implies choice. The president as a Job to do. The president may not agree with all the laws but the people who elected congress sent them there to do a job too and when that job includes passing a law - the president can veto or enforce, he/she doesn't get to pick and choose as a king/queen? In your job, if you're a manager and don't agree with the company policy of no-paid sick days or that the healthcare provided as a benefit includes (or excludes) abortions, then you can quit if you Must but I believe you can still do your job, and not be a hypocrite, even though your views and the laws of the company (laws of the land) differ. Again though, a person who can't do that job, should quit.

 

[jmdrake]

In this video, Judge points out the fact that the pres is supposed to enforce the laws Congress writes whether he agrees with them or disagrees. Couldn't this make any president inconsistent with his/her own philosophy because of the role of a president?

Okay. First off the Judge points out (correctly) that this is a political question and that the proper remedy is impeachment. And he is 100% right on that. Andrew Johnson was impeached not for taking bribes or breaking into the hotel of some political opponent or sleeping with an intern and lying about it under oath, but for refusing to carry out the reconstruction plan passed by congress. Of course the political reality is that while Obama could easily be impeached, he cannot be removed from office. Impeachment requires a simple majority in the house. Removal requires a 2/3rds majority in the senate. It's simply not there.

Now, I think your question begs the question "Well say if the president isn't enforcing a law that most of us think is a bad law anyway?" Rand Paul becomes president and in his second term he directs the DEA not to enforce any laws against marijuana. Could he be impeached? Well...only if there were the votes for it. Really if someone were to sponsor impeachment proceedings against a president an unpaid parking ticket, as silly as that may sound, that person could do it provided he had the votes.

 

[jmdrake]

In this video, Judge points out the fact that the pres is supposed to enforce the laws Congress writes whether he agrees with them or disagrees. Couldn't this make any president inconsistent with his/her own philosophy because of the role of a president?

Okay. First off the Judge points out (correctly) that this is a political question and that the proper remedy is impeachment. And he is 100% right on that. Andrew Johnson was impeached not for taking bribes or breaking into the hotel of some political opponent or sleeping with an intern and lying about it under oath, but for refusing to carry out the reconstruction plan passed by congress. Of course the political reality is that while Obama could easily be impeached, he cannot be removed from office. Impeachment requires a simple majority in the house. Removal requires a 2/3rds majority in the senate. It's simply not there.

Now, I think your question begs the question "Well say if the president isn't enforcing a law that most of us think is a bad law anyway?" Rand Paul becomes president and in his second term he directs the DEA not to enforce any laws against marijuana. Could he be impeached? Well...only if there were the votes for it. Really if someone were to sponsor impeachment proceedings against a president an unpaid parking ticket, as silly as that may sound, that person could do it provided he had the votes.