Isn’t that the whole definition of “executive branch”? They are given (by we the people) the power to choose how to execute the laws. And we elect them.

The alternatives I can think of are for laws to be executed at the whim of an algorithm, a king, a more local executive like the governors of each state, or a more distant foreign executive like the UN

▲

throwway120385 5 hours ago | parent [-]

No, the executive branch has a responsibility to execute the law. It's not a privilege. We elected them to perform a duty on our behalf. Do you understand the difference?

▲

skinfaxi 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn't discretion a foundational principle in the exercise of the executive's functions? Or is discretion reserved only for the judiciary?

	▲	mixdup 40 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The executive only has discretion if the law says they do. If the law says they must or shall do something, they must do that thing. If it says they MAY do something or otherwise explicitly gives them discretion in making a decision, then yeah, they have that discretion But it's not a given that they can just decide what laws they will or will not enforce or follow