The President's Power: Can They Refuse To Enact Laws?

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that the President shall execute the laws, but that he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. This has led to debate and differing opinions on whether a President can refuse to execute a law. While some argue that the President can direct the justice department, which includes prosecutors and federal officers, to not enforce specific laws, others believe that the President's obligation to faithfully execute the laws includes preventing waste and managing funds in an inflationary environment.

The President's obligation to execute laws

The interpretation of this clause has been a subject of discussion among legal scholars. Some argue that the President must enforce all laws passed by Congress, regardless of their personal constitutional opinions. On the other hand, some presidents, like Thomas Jefferson, have chosen to ignore certain laws they deemed unconstitutional, setting a precedent for modern presidents to exercise discretion in law enforcement. This discretion is further influenced by the President's power to pardon, which can effectively nullify the need for enforcement in certain cases.

Despite the President's discretion, there are checks and balances in place to hold them accountable. Aggrieved parties can seek Writs of Mandamus to address any refusal by the President to execute "shall" duties. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has played a role in upholding the supremacy of federal law, as seen in the Brown decision, where President Eisenhower intervened to enforce desegregation despite his initial reluctance.

Separation of powers between President and Congress

The U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power to approve federal budget spending, while the president is tasked with executing the approved funds in the Take Care Clause, which requires the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". This separation of powers between the President and Congress has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that the president has the discretion to refuse to execute laws.

While the president is generally expected to faithfully execute the laws, there have been instances where presidents have chosen not to enforce certain laws or have interpreted them differently from Congress. For example, the Obama administration directed the Justice Department not to enforce federal drug possession laws regarding cannabis when they conflicted with state laws that legalized possession. Similarly, recent presidents have chosen not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states where it has been legalized. These actions highlight the discretionary power of the president in law enforcement.

However, it is important to note that the president's refusal to execute laws can have significant consequences. In the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832), President Andrew Jackson refused to accept the Supreme Court's ruling that the Cherokee Nation constituted an independent political community, and instead sent federal troops to evict them. This action directly contravened the Court's decision and resulted in the eviction of the Cherokee people from their land.

Another example of the separation of powers between the President and Congress is the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This Act requires the president to report to Congress when he impounds funds, either as a temporary delay or a permanent cancellation of spending. While the president has the power to cancel spending, Congress can override these decisions through an expedited process, demonstrating their ability to check the president's power.

In conclusion, while the president has some discretion in executing laws, the separation of powers between the President and Congress is intended to maintain a balance and prevent either branch from exerting excessive control. The president's refusal to execute laws can have significant consequences, and Congress has mechanisms in place to counter such actions, such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

The President's power to direct the justice department

The debate centres around the interpretation of the US Constitution, specifically Article II, which designates the President as the head of the executive branch, and Article I, Section 7, which states that the President must approve or reject a bill as presented. The unitary executive theory asserts that the President has total authority over the executive branch, which includes the Department of Justice. However, the concept of prosecutorial independence and professional norms suggests that the Department of Justice should be independent of the President and make decisions free from presidential influence.

Historically, federal prosecutors enjoyed a significant degree of independence from the White House due to the diffuse local nature of federal prosecutions and vague lines of authority. The creation of the Department of Justice in 1870 was intended to consolidate and rationalize the legal arm of the government, but Congress did not anticipate that partisan politics would infiltrate and compromise the rule of law. Over time, the understanding of prosecutorial independence has evolved, and scholars continue to debate the extent to which this concept influenced the initial structure of the American government.

In recent years, concerns have been raised about presidential influence over the Justice Department. For example, during the Trump administration, there were allegations that President Trump tried to use the Justice Department for personal gain and interfered in investigations related to his campaign's ties to Russia. These actions led to discussions about the checks and balances within the executive branch and the role of the Justice Department in upholding the rule of law.

Ultimately, the power dynamics between the President and the Justice Department are complex and subject to interpretation. While the President has some influence over the Justice Department as the head of the executive branch, the Department's independence is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the American democratic experiment.

The President's ability to veto laws

The President of the United States does not have the power to refuse to execute a law. The Constitution's Take Care Clause requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". However, the President does have some discretion in how they choose to execute the law and can use their powers to direct the Justice Department, including federal officers and prosecutors, to not enforce specific laws.

For example, the Obama administration ordered the Justice Department to not enforce federal drug possession laws regarding cannabis when they conflicted with state laws that had legalised its possession. Similarly, recent presidents have chosen not to enforce federal laws against marijuana use in states where it has been legalised.

The President can also influence how laws are executed by controlling federal spending. For example, President Nixon refused to spend funds on numerous programs approved by Congress, effectively vetoing them by cutting off their funds. However, Congress can override a spending cancellation by the President.

In some cases, the President's refusal to execute a law can lead to a conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government. For instance, during the Nixon administration, Congress passed a law making it illegal for the Executive Branch to not spend appropriations, commonly known as impoundment. In another example, President Clinton used the line-item veto 82 times, but Congress restored 39 appropriations.

Ultimately, while the President does not have the explicit power to refuse to execute a law, they do have some discretion in how they choose to enforce it and can use their powers to influence the law's implementation and impact.

The President's role in interpreting the Constitution

The US Constitution does not explicitly state that the President shall execute the laws, but that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". This implies that the President is responsible for ensuring that the laws are carried out by others, typically referred to as his subordinates. The President's role in interpreting the Constitution is complex and has been a matter of debate, with some arguing that he has the power to refuse to enforce certain laws.

The President's obligation to faithfully execute the laws is derived from Article II of the Constitution, which states that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". This provision grants the President the authority to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced. However, it is important to note that the President is not required to personally perform this duty and can delegate it to the heads of appropriate departments, who then act on his behalf.

Throughout history, there have been several instances where Presidents have refused to enforce certain laws or have prioritised their enforcement. For example, during the Nixon administration, Congress passed a law making it illegal for the Executive branch to withhold spending appropriations, known as impoundment. However, President Nixon's supporters argued that he was managing funds in an inflationary environment using his Take Care powers. Additionally, recent Presidents have chosen not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states where it has been legalised, despite it remaining illegal under federal law.

In conclusion, the President's role in interpreting the Constitution is complex and has been a subject of debate throughout history. While the President is responsible for ensuring the faithful execution of the laws, there have been instances where Presidents have refused to enforce certain laws or prioritised their enforcement. The President's power to direct the Executive branch and interpret the Constitution remains a crucial aspect of the US political system.

Frequently asked questions