Quote:
Steerpike
Your questions appear to imply that if the executive doesn't wish to enforce the law upon themselves then they don't have to. This makes these complex questions (logical fallacy) and false dilemma.
|
Jesus, more of your misunderstanding of basic principles of logic. There is no logical fallacy or false dilemma.
We have a system of checks and balances. The FULL executive power of the Federal Government is vested in the President and through him the executive branch. Law enforcement is an executive function. However, failure to faithfully execute those powers or to abuse ones power and discretion is a "political" matter over which the legislative branch DOES have full and unfettered constitutional authority to deal with (with tools ranging from refusing to appropriate funds up to impeachment and removal from office).
No fallacy, no false dilemma to somebody who bothers to read and understand the separation of powers and checks and balances provided for in the Constitution.
Quote:
Steerpike
If the enforcement of such laws requires a separate enforcement force for the legislative branch, then that could be codified into law as well.
|
That would be unconstitutional, law enforcement is an executive function, and impeachment powers rest soley with the Congress.
Quote:
Steerpike
Why do you support allowing for a mechanism for unethical government?
|
Because I understand that there is no workable system of government in a representative republic which completely prevents the possibility of unethical governance, and that the system of separation of powers and checks and balances is still far superior to any other idea that has been proposed.
Let me ask you this, would this "separate enforcement force" for the legislative branch be answerable to the legislative branch? How would its members be appointed? Would they be unaccountable? If so, what is to stop abuse of their own power?