4 ms·
That’s true! But just so we’re on the same page: both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of p
by lvh 7y ago
That’s true! But just so we’re on the same page: both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote.
(Finally, I’m guessing we also agree that we’re not an statute interpretation or a regulation away from Amazon paying, let’s say, 10% of their SEC-reported profits in taxes.)
- w4 7y ago> both of those things are general guidance and emphasis, but specifically not “go audit/prosecute this list of political enemies”, which is why I think any candidate that would have answered “I intend to uphold the rule of law and therefore the question is abhorrent” probably would’ve gotten my vote. Sure. But that’s a political judgement, not a statement about the actual powers of the Executive, which is what you were talking about above. It’s within the President’s power to instruct the AG to pursue a particular case, and if the AG refuses then the President may replace them. Whether or not that’s appropriate, politically tenable, or might expose a President to action by the Legislative Branch, is a totally different question.
- lvh 7y agoSure, yep, you’re right, no argument here, I was definitely muddling the line between what the president can do and what they can probably get away with. “Launch nukes” is probably another example in that category. Thanks!