Why can't you simply answer the question? What if the president was the last stand against a law to confiscate all guns that was signed by his predecessor? Would you agree if he refused to enforce that law, and directed the FBI and ATF to not carry out confiscations? Could a constitutional crisis sparked by such a decision actually be healthy?
If the president refused to enforce a law confiscating weapons, he would be doing so in defense of the constitution. I would support his arrest and trial of those congresscritters who saw fit to act in violation of the constitution. Just as in this case, I would support his arrest and trial of any congresscritter who saw fit to share information that jeopardized US servicemen.
But as much as you would like it to be.... and as much as you;d like to ascribe some great sense of nobility to Bush's actions in this case... that example just isn't applicable.
The president clearly does not challenge the constitutionality of the notification requirement. He simply chooses to ignore it.
You know it.... I know it... so quit changing the subject ot hypotheticals.
You know very little about constitutional law or the way our government works.
The executive branch is under no obligation to 'enforce the law.' None.
Prosecutors in every county, State, and Federal District, every day of the week, decide not to prosecute and enforce certain laws.
Exercising such discretion is part of their job and their oath.