In fairness, this situation emerges because Congress has proven broadly incapable of passing or updating laws, even when polling shows a strong majority consensus for a new direction.
Ultimately, the govt is run by people, and those people's opinions about what's a priority will influence which laws get enforced. Law enforcement being responsive to an uncodified social contract is a healthy thing.
> In fairness, this situation emerges because Congress has proven broadly incapable of passing or updating laws, even when polling shows a strong majority consensus for a new direction.
I disagree. I think the TikTok ban itself has proven congress can absolutely pass laws when it wants to. Congress can do its job when it’s in their interests to do so. But the voting public generally doesn’t hold them to their responsibilities. We’re more comfortable with the speed of executive orders rather than the security of the legislative process. Sure, congress had ridiculously and historically low approval ratings… and yet the incumbents keep getting re-elected. I would argue the recent successes of the various “tea party” candidates (both electorally and legislatively) is the result of some part of the voting public deciding to hold their candidates responsible for their jobs. That their successes are not necessarily in the interests of the majority is a consequence of the majority not holding their own candidates responsible for their jobs
> govt is run by people, and those people's opinions about what's a priority will influence which laws get enforced.
Yes, I agree that will always be true - to some extent. And, sometimes, it's generally a good thing - up to a point. However at other times and places, like the Southern states in the Jim Crow era, having law enforcement's personal opinions influencing which laws get enforced has gone very badly.
While I certainly hope the pervasive excesses of the Jim Crow south will never be repeated, there have continued to be a variety of lapses and regressions in limited areas about once a decade. So, I don't think it's safe to assume they won't continue in the future. That means we'll keep needing a codified system enabling latitude in some aspects of enforcement while also punishing transgressions. No doubt, this is hard stuff.
> Congress has proven broadly incapable of passing or updating laws
Here's a tangential point that I'll mention anyway. As you said, when it really wants to, congress is perfectly capable of passing laws quite quickly. It's just that in our present very evenly divided political climate, there's no strong consensus mandating action for a lot of issues. In the absence of a significant percentage of the population, like at least two-thirds, wanting congress to act, congress is correct in not acting. There are now a substantial number of voters who vote with an intentional strategy of maintaining congressional gridlock. For them, the current situation of congress being unable to pass many significant or sweeping new laws isn't a bug, it's "the will of the people" (or at least those 'people').
> even when polling shows a strong majority consensus for a new direction.
I'm skeptical that the things which have a strong majority consensus are also the things which congress can realistically act on and things which voters want congress to act on. And all three need to be true. There are quite a few things I personally think would make the world a better place if the majority of people would do them voluntarily BUT I would never want congress to force these good ideas on other consenting adults by law. So, I would answer a poll strongly in the affirmative about what people should do - but also not want congress to force anyone to do it - and polls never make that distinction.
Ultimately, the govt is run by people, and those people's opinions about what's a priority will influence which laws get enforced. Law enforcement being responsive to an uncodified social contract is a healthy thing.