So you're seriously advocating that law enforcement decide, SUBJECTIVELY, on an individual basis, which laws they're to enforce?? Lemme guess.....they'd only be the laws you claim should and shouldn't be enforced. No wonder you have no problem with Obama's anti-constitutional end around on immigration
Here's a news flash.....RULE OF LAW is what separates us from 3rd world countries. If you don't like a law, you support legislators to change it. The job of law enforcement is to enforce EXISTING law. Yes, they have latitude, as do Prosecuters, but that's not blanket for any specific law.....except of course when it comes to the left, when they've decided, that screw the other 2 branches of government, we're going to unilaterally decide what's to be enforced, and what's not. Can you imagine the apoplectic outrage if some GOP President decides.....yea, we're not going to enforce Roe v Wade while I'm in office. Oh, and some of those Environmental laws, yea, we're going to allocate our resources in other areas. There'd be calls for impeachment
Now, before Dr Deflection pipes in that "This isn't about Obama, or even the president, this is about Gerner, your racist righty"......the point is what you're advocating.....that law enforcement, (and the Chief law enforcer in this country, is not the AG, it happens to be whoever is heading the Executive office in DC...that being the President) decide, ON ITS OWN, CONTRARY TO THE FUNCTION OF EACH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT, a blanket call of which laws are to be enforced
That's called a banana republic......and in its extreme version, a dictatorship