Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
17250 messages in 761 discussions
Latest 8/12/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Latest Sep-28 by CamGeary
Latest Sep-27 by ElDotardo
Latest Sep-8 by OSarge (mahjong54)
Latest Sep-7 by OSarge (mahjong54)
Latest Sep-2 by OSarge (mahjong54)
4885 messages in 208 discussions
Latest Sep-26 by PTG (anotherPTG)
744 messages in 13 discussions
Latest Sep-7 by ElDotardo
I googled "is US President chief law enforcement officer". It seems it all derives from ones understanding of Article II of the Constitution. There is so much opinion written on this, past case law, "expert" opinion, etc., that there was no way I could distill it all and present it here. If you agree with the article you posted, you'll find opinion to support it. If you agree with Trump, you'll find opinion to support him, and both opinions are formed from the wording of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. It gets even muddier when the Vesting Clause is invoked. As far as I can tell, whether or not one believes the President is the US Chief Enforcement Officer depends on ones political point of view and how one interprets the words of Article II, Sections 2 and 3 and the Vesting Clause.
Even your post says "Constitutional experts say the President is technically correct."
Sorry if this is muddled. My head got muddled just trying to understand what I was reading. Try it if you dare.
According to Article II of the Constitution the President has the following powers:
I think the problem comes from the utter vagueness that is "Wield the executive power".
Wield it how? And what exactly is that power?
In the hands of someone who has had so much power as an executive, it could literally mean anything to Trump.
But yeah, he can grant all the reprieves and pardons he wants!
The Founding Fathers of the Constitution never expected a wannabe monarch in the future. Almost had one with FDR but it was "fixed" with the 22nd Amendment.
Probably that could explain the vagueness.