body: I'm trying to persuade someone in a policy area to do something. One of my points is that, supposing what they're already doing is technically legal, it is not "faithfully executing" the law.
  
  
  In the abstract, is there any history that might suggest there are two differing standards of legality...one which is "faithful" and one which merely passes a base level test of legality?
  
  
  Obviously I am referring to clauses in different constitutions which require the executive to (in so many words) "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
  
  
  
title: Is there a difference between "faithfully executed laws" and laws which are technically executed but not "faithfully"?