I think if a law is unconstitutional we should be removing them. Any unconstitutional law is void, it has no constitutional foundation to even exist. They shouldn't be enforced and at the same time the process to entirely remove them should begin. What they shouldn't be is ignored completely and left to linger until such time someone needs a club to prove a point against the opposition or to force a payday.

" it flirts with the idea of ignoring laws by saying enforcement would be tantamount to treason. "
Do you disagree with this article or am I wrong to think it's saying we can ignore patently unconstitutional laws?

As I read it, it flirts with the idea of ignoring laws by saying enforcement would be tantamount to treason. Even so, there is a laborious process of moving a bill toward the White House for signature into law, all of which are the checks established to ensure Constitutionality. While laws may be in place due the malfeasance of congress AND a sitting president that doesn't mean we compound matters by letting them live i the shadows until such time someone wants a weapon to wield. Let Congress, SCOTUS and the President go through the established process for invalidating/voiding unconstitutional and publicize it so it will be a teachable moment for everyone, congress, the judiciary, the executive and the people of the United States.

These bills should have never become laws and its the politicians OBLIGATION and DUTY to prune the tree.

"I do not accept that ANY individual in a position of authority has the ability to ignore any law. "
My possibly naive understanding of this article is it's saying it's okay for government leaders to ignore laws that are clearly unconstitutional.

I do not accept that ANY individual in a position of authority has the ability to ignore any law. There is a process to remove laws that are unconstitutional and they should be used. Once something is law is must be adhered to and enforced until legitimately repealed. Ignored laws are what get people thrown in jail when the politicians suddenly decide they can use them as clubs.

Simply put, there should be no unconstitutional laws.

It makes me think of the quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "When in doubt, don't." I accept the argument of the executive branch refusing to enforce a law the president thinks is unconstitutional. I would hate to see it turned on its head, though, where this argument is wrongly used to all government action. Say the president thinks that people are being intimidated from exercising free speech or another guaranteed right, so she starts taking government action beyond current law to protect that right. In that case, this could become just another excuse for increased executive branch power.

Even if we say this concept only allows the gov't to refuse to act, not to act, I still think it should be used cautiously. In my mind, things fall into constitutional, unconstitutional, and debatable. So failing to enforce a law should only apply to things the president or other gov't official thinks are patently unconstitutional. Otherwise, I could see this being perverted into making the exec branch even more powerful.