This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Now that Donald Trump has won...

145791012

Comments

  • That fight wound up concluding elsewhere. To keep everyone else up to speed: I was functioning on the assumption that Feds were obligated to enforce all the laws they make. The knowledge that this is not the case terrifies me more than nullification ever did.
  • Greg said:

    That fight wound up concluding elsewhere. To keep everyone else up to speed: I was functioning on the assumption that Feds were obligated to enforce all the laws they make. The knowledge that this is not the case terrifies me more than nullification ever did.

    I appreciate you keeping us pelbs appraised. But I do wonder where it states or where they demonstrate that they are they not obligated to enforce all the laws they make?
  • Naoza said:

    Greg said:

    That fight wound up concluding elsewhere. To keep everyone else up to speed: I was functioning on the assumption that Feds were obligated to enforce all the laws they make. The knowledge that this is not the case terrifies me more than nullification ever did.

    I appreciate you keeping us pelbs appraised. But I do wonder where it states or where they demonstrate that they are they not obligated to enforce all the laws they make?
    What do you mean by "it?"

    Prosecutorial discretion has ALWAYS been a thing. You choose your battles; that's why informants are a thing. You have to let the small ones go to get the big ones sometimes. How do you think prosecutors are allowed to do that? NOT EVERY CRIME OR VIOLATION OF A LAW IS PROSECUTED. That is true at local, state, and federal levels. It has to be; there would be too much to handle if it weren't.

    Have you never seen the announcements from the Justice Dept where they say they will not be enforcing X provision of a law? Such as halting deportations of undocumented immigrants?

    In fact, here is the Justice Department's announcement about an update to their Marijuana enforcement policy (Yes, they have policies about prioritizing enforcement!).
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-update-marijuana-enforcement-policy
  • edited November 2016
    By "it" in that sentence I was asking for a line somewhere in us federal law stating the equivalent of "The Federal Government of the United States of America is not obligated to enforce the laws and codes contained in names of codes of federal laws. Failing that I was after exactly what you just provided: proof that, written into the letter of law or not, it's demonstrated that all federal laws are not enforced by the government tasked with enforcing them. I'd simply never run across it until just now. (forgive my ignorance, I'm genuinely here to learn.)
    Post edited by Naoza on
  • edited November 2016
    Naoza said:

    By "it" in that sentence I was asking for a line somewhere in us federal law stating the equivalent of "The Federal Government of the United States of America is not obligated to enforce the laws and codes contained in names of codes of federal laws.

    I mean, for one thing... Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

    "1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

    The Justice Department is an executive agency, which means some of the President's power has been delegated to it.

    Nowhere in our laws does it say that every instance of criminal or illegal action must be prosecuted, so there's no reason for a law expressly saying they don't have to be.
    Post edited by Nuri on
  • The rational behind DACA is prosecutorial privilege. The US has a long history of the Executive Branch on down choosing which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The common defense for this policy is that we do not have enough resources to enforce all of the laws.
  • This isn't just the history of the US. Literally every culture with a legal system has selective enforcement of said legal system.

    It's a necessary way to permit compassion in the law. It opens the door for other abuses, but allows for a human element.

    Think about it like this: humans make laws, and humans are imperfect. So if we had perfect enforcement of imperfect rules, it would stand a chance to inflict far more undue suffering than the system does already.

    Executive flexibility is an absolute necessity if you're going to do your job effectively. I've spent 12 years in an executive branch regulatory enforcement agency. You have limited time and funds and you have to choose where to invest those. There are far more violations than your time and funds allow you to chase, so you need to prioritize what you do and where you do it.
  • Again pardon my ignorance but it seems you're on another level from me. As I see it the question of whether they're obligated to enforce all their laws and which of their laws they devote resources to enforcing are two different questions.

    As an example, if a federal employee saw that I possessed a schedule 1 drug, they would be obligated to report this through proper channels. Not doing so (if it could be proved later) would be grounds for reprimands and possible legal trouble.

    If anything I said above is not true, then they're not obligated to enforce their own laws. But I do believe we live in a world where that statement is true and therefore the federal government is still obligated to enforce its own laws.

    The power to pardon is a pretty good way around this obligation. In my view, though, it's existence doesn't mean that the obligation ceases to exist.

    (I'm coming from a position of ignorance. Please be nice and educate.)
  • They are not in many cases obligated.

    An example is the TSA. Their sole obligation is to refer to a law enforcement officer if they directly encounter marijuana, but they specifically do not search for it.

    https://apps.tsa.dhs.gov/mytsa/cib_results.aspx?search=marijuana

    In practice they by internal policy do not report such marijuana to any law enforcement authority in states where it is legal. Sometimes, in order to prevent their aiding in a federal crime (flying out of state with it), they'll demand that you not bring it on the plane. But they also reserve the option of simply screening it and assessing solely its compliance with their rules and FAA rules for security and safety.

    It appears that in some states (like Washington), they will occasionally refer the incident to local law enforcement, who then do nothing because no state or city law was broken.

    Colorado's airport has I believe a municipal law prescribing fines for bringing marijuana on an airplane. But unless you actually violate that specific law, there is no action taken by any law enforcement or federal employee on the matter even if directly encountered.
  • http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/29/503740464/law-professor-trump-cant-hold-lease-on-his-hotel-near-white-house

    The Government may not be interested in investigating or prosecuting corruption charges leveled at Donald Trump. The same thing cannot be said about contracts with the Government. Another contractor can always bring the issue to trial that the Government is in breach of its own contract if they maintain the relationship with Trump.

    Who knows, if we push the aspect of "You and your family can't trade on your brand for 4-8 years." He'll quit the office faster than a New Year's resolution.
  • There are many federal employees. Most are only obligated to do/report things within the scope of their employment. Obligations and ethical considerations vary from position to position, so you have to read the literature for your job to know what your restrictions are. You can't just say every federal employee is obligated to enforce every federal law at all times.

    Okay, I guess you COULD say that, but you would be wrong. That would be ridiculous to expect. I mean, not even lawyers are conversant with every federal law in such a way as to be able to spot all violations on the street and report them.
  • edited November 2016
    Naoza said:

    Again pardon my ignorance but it seems you're on another level from me. As I see it the question of whether they're obligated to enforce all their laws and which of their laws they devote resources to enforcing are two different questions.

    As an example, if a federal employee saw that I possessed a schedule 1 drug, they would be obligated to report this through proper channels. Not doing so (if it could be proved later) would be grounds for reprimands and possible legal trouble.

    If anything I said above is not true, then they're not obligated to enforce their own laws. But I do believe we live in a world where that statement is true and therefore the federal government is still obligated to enforce its own laws.

    The power to pardon is a pretty good way around this obligation. In my view, though, it's existence doesn't mean that the obligation ceases to exist.

    (I'm coming from a position of ignorance. Please be nice and educate.)

    Sure, I'll be nice!

    And the answer is pretty much "nope, that's not how it is everywhere." Different executive branch agencies set their standards differently, but speaking broadly, not all federal employees are obligated to be reporters on all violations of all federal laws, even if that law is something for which they are directly responsible.

    That would, in essence, make every single federal employee a police officer for all federal laws - and that's just not practical. There are a lot of laws, so it's impossible to expect everyone to be keen on every violation.

    We have whistleblower protection laws to protect those who do report, but AFAIK there is no broad requirement to report violations of the law.

    I'm not speaking from direct experience on the Federal level (though I am very conversant with the laws in 21CFR), but I am quite experienced on the state level. I am bound by the New York State Public Officer's Law, but that only governs my interaction with state laws, and does not include mandatory reporting requirements. Some jobs have mandatory reporting requirements for some violations.

    And while you might separate the obligation from the practical reality, they're really not that separated. The consistent rationale given for not obligating government employees to report every violation they see is precisely that the agencies to whom they would report such things do not have the resources to handle all of that reporting. They're intrinsically linked.

    Here's an example. Let's say my testing results in a Class 1 recall of a particular food product. I dunno, let's just pick one at random and say Sabra Hummus. Anyhow, if I walk into a grocery store and see the implicated lot for sale on a retail shelf, I am in no way legally obligated to report that to anyone for any reason.

    If I walk into a deli and see an employee storing raw products in the same display case as RTE products, I am not obligated to report that either.

    Actually, we've had issues with individual employees exercising authority which they do not possess in pursuit of certain investigations. We need to have a system in place with clear rules for reporting, because that will come up in a hearing or lawsuit should any of our work result in legal action (which is the point of my job, after all). Violate the rules of procedure, you jeopardize your legal case and undermine the legitimacy of your agency.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • Rym, Nuri, TheWhaleShark. I appreciate you taking the time to show me the err of my thinking.
  • Naoza said:

    Rym, Nuri, TheWhaleShark. I appreciate you taking the time to show me the err of my thinking.

    When it comes to law, the answer is usually a more detailed variant of "It's complicated, and nothing works the way you think it does." It's good to ask about things.
  • Nuri said:

    Naoza said:

    Rym, Nuri, TheWhaleShark. I appreciate you taking the time to show me the err of my thinking.

    When it comes to law, the answer is usually a more detailed variant of "It's complicated, and nothing works the way you think it does." It's good to ask about things.
    EX POST FACTO!!!
  • Side question: is it possible for a federal court to order law enforcement agencies to enforce specific laws?
  • Side question: is it possible for a federal court to order law enforcement agencies to enforce specific laws?

    I don't know. What I do know is that the U.S. Marshals exist and belong to the judicial branch of government. If the court orders something, they can send the Marshal's to enforce those orders.
  • Side question: is it possible for a federal court to order law enforcement agencies to enforce specific laws?

    Yes.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus

  • Are there consequences for inaction in face of a mandamus?
  • Okay, that's what I thought
  • IIRC from the recent times similar things have happened (like Arpaio ignoring a court order to stop being racist), it results in being found in contempt of court. For some positions I think that means the court can order you removed, but for others I think the court is effectively powerless.
  • I know the courts were powerless in 1830 but that was a while ago.
  • It depends on the court and the official in question. They have the usual remedies available... incarceration and fines. Whether they use them is up to them.
  • edited December 2016
    As explained earlier in this thread, Austria also experienced a rise of right-wing politics as have unfortunately a lot of places in europe and the United States. This year was the Presidential election which was first among six candidates. After nobody reached a majority it became a runoff election between Alexander Van Der Bellen who ran as an independent but was for a long time a member of the left-wing Green Party, and Norbert Hofer of the far-right Freedom Party.

    Van Der Bellen narrowly won the runoff after making up a deficit when the mail-in ballots were counted but Hofer sued and the election was annulled, leading to a new election which was today. And thankfully my country rejected Hofer. The projected results have Van Der Bellen winning this even when subtracting the margin of error.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • Every time I encounter an article that uses "Clinton won the popular vote" or otherwise fails to understand how campaigns work under the electoral college system I just stop reading. My god people, it has been almost a month now.

    All these media entities are doing is destroying their own credibility before the new administration is sworn in next year. How are we to believe these journalists in the future when they point to real problems with Trump as president when they have a history of crying wolf?
  • edited December 2016
    HMTKSteve said:

    Every time I encounter an article that uses "Clinton won the popular vote" or otherwise fails to understand how campaigns work under the electoral college system I just stop reading. My god people, it has been almost a month now.

    All these media entities are doing is destroying their own credibility before the new administration is sworn in next year. How are we to believe these journalists in the future when they point to real problems with Trump as president when they have a history of crying wolf?

    How is pointing out that the electoral college is bullshit for allowing ~80.000 voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to override 2.5 million votes elsewhere in the country "crying wolf"? Particularly considering the idiocy/hypocrisy of Trump simultaneously declaring that tons of illegal votes where made, but a recount is unnecessary?
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • Saying , "the electoral college is undemocratic" is fine as long as the writer acknowledges that the US is NOT a democracy.

    Saying that if we used the popular vote instead of the electoral college Clinton would have won is nothing more than speculation and ignores the fact that campaigns do not operate under a popular vote system. For campaigns, running up the vote count in a state they know they are going to win is a waste of resources.

    Saying that if Stein didn't run Clinton would have won is also speculation and assumes every Stein voter would have voted for Clinton. The Republicans can do the same gymnastics with Johnson votes/voters.

    The electoral college is operating as it was designed to operate. Bitching about it is fine as long as the bitcher correctly understands what they are bitching about. In most cases these articles read like people bitching about how a system worked as designed but gave them a result they didn't want.
  • edited December 2016
    HMTKSteve said:

    Saying , "the electoral college is undemocratic" is fine as long as the writer acknowledges that the US is NOT a democracy.

    Talk about being able to dismiss something after the first sentence. The U.S. is most definitely a democracy. What do you think happened last November if not a democratic election? A very shittly designed one that has been perverted and bastardized, but at least one that was supposed to be a democratic election.
    HMTKSteve said:

    Saying that if we used the popular vote instead of the electoral college Clinton would have won is nothing more than speculation and ignores the fact that campaigns do not operate under a popular vote system. For campaigns, running up the vote count in a state they know they are going to win is a waste of resources.

    Saying that if Stein didn't run Clinton would have won is also speculation and assumes every Stein voter would have voted for Clinton. The Republicans can do the same gymnastics with Johnson votes/voters.

    The electoral college is operating as it was designed to operate. Bitching about it is fine as long as the bitcher correctly understands what they are bitching about. In most cases these articles read like people bitching about how a system worked as designed but gave them a result they didn't want.

    Considering that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent a populist demagogue to become president or as Hamilton put it "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications", I guess we will find out whether the electoral college "works as designed" on December 19th.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
Sign In or Register to comment.