Nowhere in the constitution would it give him the ability to ignore the constitution if the other 2 branches violate it. You are inventing new dictatorial rights for POTUS.
No. Because the law would be constitutional since the Supreme Court said it is
You keep trying to argue that the president determines what is constitutional but the courts do. It doesn't matter what the president thinks is constitutional
If the president was bound to enforce the law, how could the court possibly argue the constitutionality can't be considered because no one is in jeopardy?
The court basically decided you can't even challenge the Switchblade Act on 2A constitutional grounds because it's already been nullified by the executive as it's not been enforced in 10 years[].
Nullification of execution/enforcement was something even the founders (Thomas Jefferson) considers legitimate application of the constitution in regards to the unconstitutional Sedition Act.
[] https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/court-opines-feds...
The court's opinion is lack of standing due to lack of harm because the law wasn't enforced and unlikely enforced. They can have this opinion even if the law is supposed to be enforced.
A requirement isn't invalid because it's not always followed.
You've made up your mind the president has to violate the constitution, you've nulled and voided the document, there is no further discussion needed.
It says there's no standing, not be because the law is _unenforced_, but because plaintiff hasn't suffered any perjury _from enforcement_ (which is ofc bc the law isn't enforced, but that's besides the point).
False, they say exactly that
...As a result, Plaintiffs contend they reasonably fear that Defendants will continue to enforce the Federal Knife Ban against them.”10 The evidence presented by Defendants show there are only records of four enforcement actions in the county under the Act since 2004 and it has not been enforced since Plaintiffs do not counter this factual assertion. Accordingly, the threat of prosecution under Section 1242 “is therefore a mere hypothetical dispute lacking the concreteness and imminence required by Article III.
...it has not been enforced since at least 2004—the farthest back that systematic data is available.26 As a result, Plaintiffs plainly lack standing when they fail to provide evidence that the statutory provision has ever been enforced against them or regularly enforced against others.