Correct, but refusal to enforce a law is one of the checks the executive has on the legislature. When this happens it's up to the judiciary to mediate.
That doesn't /seem/ right - executive can /veto/ a law before it is passed, but I don't believe they are given the ability to not enforce that law once it's been passed. That is effectively creating law, and is reaching into the legislative branch, still.
But that is the way it works, take the marijuana legalization state laws. Technically, its still against federal law, but the feds have basically agreed not to prosecute growers/distributors/users in those states.
It was actually a giant question when trump came into office whether he would start arresting people working/running the legal pot shops in Colorado/etc.
So, there are a lot of other cases, where statutes are simply not enforced, but haven't been removed due to lack of political will. Sodomy/etc laws are another area, where they remain on the books despite a number of supreme court rulings declaring various aspects unconstitutional. That means its quite possible depending on where you live frequently performed acts, not explicitly allowed by the supreme court are actually illegal.
Correct. There's a difference between what theoretically should be, and what we actually see happening, and what is enforced. The legislative branch seems happy to abdicate /its/ role to the administrative in the states when it finds it convenient to do so.
You've got a fair point. I don't know if there's a process for the executive to submit such a passed law to the judicial in the first place, before it takes effect.
