It is always interesting, and sometimes amazing, to read the letters to the editor. For example, Michael Hale suggests that “prosecutorial discretion” allows the president or anyone in an executive position to ignore the law.

To take a simple example, a motorist is caught speeding and the District Attorney’s Office determines that he was rushing his severely injured child to the nearest emergency room. The district attorney has “prosecutorial discretion” not to prosecute. This clearly does not give him the right to not prosecute all traffic violations. Nor does a district attorney have the “discretion” to decide not to enforce laws against murder, rape and robbery, etc.

As to immigration: In a hardship case, the president may determine that certain victims will be given refuge and not deported. The president does not have the discretion nor the authority to ignore or fail to enforce any body of laws.

Hale suggests that if he perceives a “problem” that Congress will not correct, it is up to the president to take action. Fortunately this line of reasoning which leads to dictatorship is precluded by our Constitution, which provides that Congress shall enact the laws (Art. I) and the President shall “faithfully execute” such laws (Art. II).

Despite the fact that some believe we should have open borders and grant absolution to all who have illegally crossed the border, ours is still a government of laws.

We do not yet have a king or emperor who can ignore the laws enacted by Congress and justify such lawlessness as an exercise of discretion.

Richard Regan

retired attorney