Little help here from the lawyery types…
In philosophy, there’s a moral principle that “ought implies can“. Put otherwise, it means that in order for some action to be obligatory, it must be possible for the agent to perform that act.
Is there a similar principle in law? If the Congress enacted a law requiring the executive to provide a free unicorn to each citizen (or some non-zero subset of citizens), could that law be considered Constitutional? Clearly it is impossible. Wouldn’t impossibility imply unconstitutionality?
Similarly, Obama’s defense of his endless improvisations that substantially alter the law seems to be that the law is impossible to implement.
I hope you can see where I’m going with this.
Any such principle, law nerds?