> but maybe it won’t be a law if one guy decides he doesn’t like it
Are you talking about a presidential veto? What are you saying?
Are you talking about a presidential veto? What are you saying?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-tiktok-ban-what...
Some problems such as LA fires require immediate response, some problems require an escalation mechanism and many others can be dealt during regular business hours.
Stop.
Is there a section in the text of the law that says that enforcement has to happen outside of normal office hours or do you just assume that’s the case because the law is being talked about in the news?
I am glad that we are on the same page that the answer to “why don’t they enforce the law that they can’t enforce” is in the question.
> I don’t understand, why wouldn’t they send it out on the 19th?
> "Given the sheer fact of timing, this Administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next Administration, which takes office on Monday," White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.
He had more than that during his last term, so this term should be harder to get things done then last time.
I say this as a registered Republican since the Bush era who has never voted for Trump. I don't feel like anyone in the party represents me anymore.
He only has a couple of years to pass bills also, it is unlikely that the Republicans retain control of the house after the next midterm (unless Trump is popular).
> Although President-elect Donald Trump could choose to not enforce the law...
Which is ridiculous. It's the executive branch's function to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" [1]. The president's DOJ can't simply refuse to enforce the law. There's some debate over whether this applies to 'enforcement discretion', in that the president doesn't have infinite resources to perfectly execute the law and some things will slip through, or whether the president can decline to enforce a law that he believes to be unconstitutional before the supreme court declares it to be so.
In theory, no, the president can't simply decline to enforce a law, congress would then be able to impeach and remove him. In practice, though it happens a little bit all the time. And even if this was black and white, I don't know that there's anything that the incoming president can do that the incoming congress would impeach him for.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-5/...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...
When he first took office in 2017, I figured that it would happen within six months. Given that he was impeached twice, I was almost right, but it didn't happen until Democrats won the House. Even most of the "old establishment" Republicans ended up backing him. Now there are none of those remaining.
I had to look up how they handle marijuana laws since that has the _look_ of the DOJ doing just that.
'In each fiscal year since FY2015, Congress has included provisions in appropriations acts that prohibit DOJ from using appropriated funds to prevent certain states, territories, and DC from "implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana"'[1]
So in that case it's Congress that prohibits the DOJ from enforcing a federal law. So your point stands in that the DOJ may not be able to unilaterally decide not to enforce a law, but apparently congress can sort-of extort them into ignoring laws? Oh America.