11

In July, Congress passed, in a near-unanimous vote, a law called the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which among other things imposes sanctions on Russia for their interference in the 2016 presidential election. But the Trump administration just announced that it is not implementing those sanctions, because they claim the law itself is enough of a deterrent without actually sanctioning anyone.

But my question is, what is the Trump administration's legal basis for not enforcing this law? The President cannot simply choose not to enforce a law. But does this law have a provision that allows the President to either delay or suspend its enforcement?

Keshav Srinivasan
  • 9,043
  • 2
  • 35
  • 70
  • 2
    I'd Wager referencing Article II and Zivotofsky v. Kerry would set a good foundation for this answer. Does the legislature have the authority to dictate Executive policy. – Drunk Cynic Jan 30 '18 at 20:14
  • 5
    "The President cannot simply choose not to enforce a law." ... US immigration laws haven't changed over the past few years. The same immigration laws under Obama now exist under Trump. So why are so many people angry at Trump? The difference is enforcement. Of course a President can choose not to enforce a law. I can cite scores of examples. Oh, and don't forget this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUhykHLjT6M – Michael Benjamin Jan 30 '18 at 22:36
  • 3
    @Michael_B Enforcement isn't the difference; Obama deported a lot of people. The difference is mainly Trumps racist rhetoric and his desire for new laws and regulations restricting legal immigration from non-white people. That's why people are angry. If you mean DACA specifically, it's true that it was implemented by executive action, but while there is some leeway in some cases, I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that presidents can arbitrarily choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. If you can back up the claim that presidents can ignore laws, that would likely make a good answer. – tim Jan 31 '18 at 09:13
  • 4
    @tim The president can't force the non-enforcement of laws, but he can encourage it. Obama for example issued a memo to deprioritize marijuana laws. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/federal-marijuana-policy-change-raises-significant-questions Obama's memo didn't change the laws on the books, it only encouraged non-enforcement of those laws. Trump and Sessions can tell federal agents what to look for, and how to behave, but that's federal law enforcement within the US, carried out by government employees who take instructions. I don't think it applies to this question on Russia. – userLTK Jan 31 '18 at 12:57
  • 2
    "The President cannot simply choose not to enforce a law" Look up prosecutorial discretion. – David says Reinstate Monica Feb 01 '18 at 06:18
  • 1
    @tim, yes I was referring to DACA primarily. Also, I agree with you that Obama had millions deported. In fact, he was known in some quarters as the "Deporter-In-Chief".... – Michael Benjamin Feb 01 '18 at 15:50
  • 1
    ... but your claim that "The difference is mainly Trumps racist rhetoric and his desire for new laws and regulations restricting legal immigration from non-white people.", is just regrettable. I have yet to see Pres. Trump utter a "racist" remark or target people based on the color of their skin. I've heard many people echo your sentiment, but I've never actually seen it happen. Maybe you should formulate that statement into a question that can be properly explored. @tim – Michael Benjamin Feb 01 '18 at 15:50
  • @Michael_B I can think of at least a dozen statements or actions just off the top of my head. For an incomplete list, see eg wikipedia. Some are dogwhistles (eg 'immigrants from Norway' means white people), many are plainspoken. I think the issue is pretty clear, and I don't think anyone honestly disputes the existence of - as wikipedia puts it - racially-charged remarks by him. As for opening a question: I think it is an interesting topic which might actually draw decent answers, but it would very likely be closed. – tim Feb 01 '18 at 16:07
  • 1
    @tim, since I care about my country, I tend to observe the statements and actions of political leaders. As I said before, I have seen no evidence to establish that President Trump has engaged in any form of racism. Just because you or somebody else attributes his motivation to racism doesn't make it true. If you want to put down specific examples, we can explore this issue further. But as of now, you've provided nothing more than personal opinion. – Michael Benjamin Feb 01 '18 at 16:32
  • 1
    Also, thanks for the wiki reference, but if you read it carefully, you'll note the existence of an echo chamber -- the author charges racism, then references others in the media who have said the same thing. To me, that's more bullying and hate, than truth and accuracy. Respectfully, back up your claims. – Michael Benjamin Feb 01 '18 at 16:34

1 Answers1

9

  1. As Drunk Cynic's comment noted, one of the main legal angles was constitutional, namely an assertion that the law as passed usurped Executive branch's Constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations.

    Quoting Wikipedia:

    On the day President Donald Trump signed the bill into law, he issued two separate, simultaneous statements. In the statement meant for Congress he said: "While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea, and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed. In its haste to pass this legislation, the Congress included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" — such as restrictions on executive branch′s authority that limited its flexibility in foreign policy.

    Among other things, the statement noted that the legislation ran foul of the Zivotofsky v. Kerry ruling of the Supreme Court. The president appeared to indicate that he might choose not to enforce certain provisions of the legislation: "My Administration will give careful and respectful consideration to the preferences expressed by the Congress in these various provisions and will implement them in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations."

  2. Additionally, the law itself left wiggle room, under "SEC. 112. <> PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER AUTHORITY." and other numerous waivers (I don't think that's the one used, since this one requires case by case waivers and reports to congress).

There's also a boatload of National Security waivers but I don't think those were specifically invoked either.

Brythan
  • 89,627
  • 8
  • 218
  • 324
user4012
  • 92,336
  • 19
  • 225
  • 386