Mr Khan said:
The executive branch has been doing this for years, whether or not they specifically ignore certain laws or are merely more lax on enforcement of certain types of laws (some financial regulations in Republican administrations, for instance) On topic: how was this law constitutional in the first place? Weren't Republicans trying to push for a constitutional amendment on this five years back or so? |
Which really means nothing, except for the fact that the Obama administration has been accused of doing it even more, when you'd want to start doing it less.
As for the second part. They consider it constiutional in the same way that banning Achohol in some states of Utah is consitutional even when prohibition was repealed.
They were seeking an ammendment not because they thought it was an unconstituional law, but soley because they wanted to make it "Super DUPER illegal."
Much how most gay marriage arguements tend to go like this.
Democrat: I think gay marriage should be illegal
Republician: I think gay marriage should be illegal harder.
Democrat: What?
Republican: Therefore we should pass a law that makes it illegal.
Democrat: But, it's already illegal... in that it's not legal. I mean, you can't marry a cat.... but there isn't a law specifically saying you can't marry a cat.
Republican: AHA! So your for people being able to marry cats! Which makes you for gay marriage!
Democrat: What... no... wait... what?
Republican: Exactly!








