Do you believe executive power allows for the following scenarios

Two scenarios here. Would like your take on the hypotheticals:

Scenario One:

The head of the ATF sends out a memo to the workforce providing guidance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. The memo outlines a number of factors to be considered when dealing with arrests relating to firearm possession and sales, including whether firearm courses have been taken/offered by the individual, if there’s documented firearms use since childhood, or if the person is a veteran. Instead, the memo said that agency’s priorities should be arresting gun law violators who are “a clear risk to national security”, “serious felons”, “known gang members”, and “individuals with an egregious record of gun violations”.

Violations of federal gun regulations reported to the ATF and had a suspect that was one of those classes of people would be ignored in favor for others in the name of “work load”. Thus, individuals obtaining firearms illegally who had used firearms since being a child, has taken educational courses regarding it, or where former military members would not have action or cases brought against them.

Just prior to this memo, Republicans in congress had tried to pass a law that would remove the need for a background checks or waiting limits for Veterans purchasing firearms. Additionally, the law would provide a means for those who would otherwise be disallow the ability to purchase a firearm the ability to do so if they took a certain contingent of firearm educational courses. These attempted laws failed to pass within the houses of congress.

Do you believe it’s within the power of the executive branch for them to enact such prosecutorial discretion? And if you do believe it’s within power of the executive branch to do such, would you have an issue with the specific administration choosing to take such action?

Scenario Two:

Democrats win control of Congress in 2014 and pass a new finance bill that, in part, raises the income tax for those making over $250k to 50% effective January 1[SUP]st[/SUP] 2018. A republican wins the Presidency in 2016.

Said President then instructs the relevant agencies relating to monitoring and enforcing tax law to provide one year of “transition relief”, and to allow for people to continue working through 2018 with tax payers able to revise and engage in “real world testing” of the potential new taxation levels, reporting requirements and forms relating to the new taxation levels, and other necessary entities to assure for a “Smooth transition” into a “full implementation” of the new tax rates in 2019.

Then, in 2019, the Executive Branch declares that said evaluation period for the transition is still necessary and again extends the waiver of the tax increase for another year to 2020. The administration claims that this is not refusing to enforce the increased rates but rather a minor temporary course correct regarding an individual provision of the financial law, necessary to faithfully execute the overall statute, other related laws, and purposes of the finance laws framers.

In the finance law passed by congress it was specifically detailed and dated that the new taxation level would be implemented in January of 2018. While it includes a section for granting authority for the administration to waive certain portions of the finance law, it includes a set of exact conditions that are not met by this action, including that it doesn’t provide for this action until 2021.

Do you believe it’s within the power of the executive branch for them to choose to delay such things on the basis of the executives prerogative as to the best effort to execute the law? And if you do believe it’s within the power of the executive branch to do such, would you have an issue with the specific administration choosing to take such action?

I dont have an issue with scenario 1 since I consider that to be simple smart police work and I recognize the ineffectiveness and impossibility of treating every case with the exact equal attention.

Scenario 2 I do have an issue with because its what I'd consider to be an abuse of Executive authority to delay a law that should have no issue being enacted in the first place, especially given that there was 4 years to prepare for a simple change to the tax on your earned income. The President should not use his authority to deliberately obstruct law.

Now I assume the obvious parallel to scenario 2 is Obamacare, however Obamacare is far more complex than a simple change in your tax level. I do like to think pragmatically and while I don't like the idea of the President using his authority to simply say a law or a certain part of the law won't be enforced, I can live with it if it makes sense at the time to ultimately make the law work in the long term. Now has every delay or other executive action taken by Obama in relation to the ACA strictly about "tweaking" it slightly to make it work, is every action just a "minor course correction" to address an unexpected consequence or issue that once realized will see the executive action end? Probably not, I mean it is his law after all I assume he wants it to work, but I have no idea I haven't followed it that closely.

So as a tool I don't mind the President having, but it should be used sparingly and only to actually accomplish something not just delay law out of spite.