Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zanfa | Hacker News Reader

> and a court order is just as binding whether you agree with it or not (and indeed whether it's legally correct or not).

But the same question remains. Who’s going to enforce it?

View on HN

> But the same question remains. Who’s going to enforce it?

Whoever did or didn't before. It's got nothing to do with this executive order as far as I can see.

Do i understand corretly?

The executive shall enforce orders, because it is bound by laws to do so, which for the executive can only be interpreted by the president?

Sounds like a power grab to me.

> The executive shall enforce orders, because it is bound by laws to do so

No? They don't do their job because the law compels them to do (often it doesn't, e.g. the police don't have any positive legal obligation to make arrests or what have you). They do their job because it's their job.

Before this EO the executive branch policy on court orders was "always listen to them." This EO changes that to "ignore court orders if they conflict with what the president wants"

How? Court orders aren't a matter of interpretation of the law. Agencies might follow interpretations of the law that blatantly conflict with court orders when considering matters not directly covered by those court orders, but they've already been doing that for decades, the EO doesn't change anything about that.

Seems like it needs to be spelled out for you: Enforcement of federal law is overseen by the DOJ, an executive department bound by this very EO.

Do you see it now?

The question of which federal laws to enforce is indeed controlled by the president. That's already normal and has been used by many presidents to de facto change the law (e.g. weed non-enforcement, various immigration amnesties). But that's got nothing to do with court orders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com