wagesj45

You mean there’s no chance that Wal-Mart might choose to absorb the increased prices out of the goodness of their hearts? :o

I’m not saying you’re wrong, per se. In theory it is good to keep that distance between the executive and the prosecutorial decisions. But I hold that view in the same way that I hold the view that war is bad. Sometimes it is necessary when you’re given no other choice. Not to belabor the point, but this man is a danger not only to marginalized groups, but to American society and the world at large. The constitution imbues the presidency with the authority and power to take action and if this wasn’t the time to use the power afforded to it, then I don’t know man…

When the chief executive steps in to direct prosecution, it has a strong tendency to become political and lead away from democracy.

Seems like the same happens when we cling to that norm too closely, as well.

The chief executive of the US has been a Democrat for 4 years, and it was absolutely their responsibility to prosecute (or ensure prosecution happens to) anyone that broke the law, or to at least protect the country. The norm has been for Presidents to maintain a firewall between themselves and prosecutorial decisions, but that’s not constitutionally mandated as far as I can tell.

You’re supposed to in the US, yes.