It's not a rule, it's a law passed by Congress and signed by the President in 1978. You can't just ignore it.
They’re not ignoring. They’re saying they think the law itself is unconstitutional.
From the article:
> In a sweeping new memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel, the DOJ claims the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional. The department’s edict, which is already facing legal challenges, argues that a president’s records are private, rather than public, property.
The general rule is that even facially unconstitutional laws are usually enforced until a judicial ruling against them. see e.g. all the people who did prison time for municipal handgun prohibitions until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).
"This is unconstitional because Trump doesn't like it" is not a very strong argument. The position he's holding is called "Public Office" (not private office) for a reason.
Comments
They’re not ignoring. They’re saying they think the law itself is unconstitutional.
From the article:
Yeah, well, they can say that to SCOTUS.
and they will, and SCOTUS will listen, and say "remind me what party the president is from again" and then say "hmmmmm"
The general rule is that even facially unconstitutional laws are usually enforced until a judicial ruling against them. see e.g. all the people who did prison time for municipal handgun prohibitions until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).
"This is unconstitional because Trump doesn't like it" is not a very strong argument. The position he's holding is called "Public Office" (not private office) for a reason.
So far, it appears to be a very convincing argument to the supreme court most of the time.