The statement suggests that efforts to avoid compliance with enacted law are unlikely to succeed without support from Congress or the President. This implies that there are legal obligations that must be upheld unless there is a higher authority backing the suspension of those obligations.
From the options you provided, the conclusion that can be drawn is that any of the listed services (trash collection, police services, fire services, mail delivery) are likely to remain in operation because they are enacted laws (or services mandated by law) which cannot be easily suspended without legal backing.
However, without additional context about specific laws related to those services, it's not possible to definitively conclude that it is illegal to suspend any one of them based solely on the statement. The statement is more about the general principle of legal compliance than about the specifics of these services.
Therefore, the best conclusion would be that it is likely illegal to suspend these services without proper legal authority, but it doesn't specify that any one of these services is definitively illegal to suspend; it just implies a principle of legal obligation.
1 answer