3 ms·
The point is that Congress should not let in the hands of a person like D.T. the important task of defining which companies should operate in the country. There
by coliveira 6y ago
The point is that Congress should not let in the hands of a person like D.T. the important task of defining which companies should operate in the country. There should be legislation to determine this.
- seanmcdirmid 6y agoThat isn't how our democracy works. Congress doesn't get to decide who gets to be president, the voters do. We don't have a prime minister. An executive order can literally declare anything it wants. If it goes against the law, that is where the courts come in. Congress can't tell the president what he can and cannot write, if the president writes an order that goes against the law, that is where the courts come in (and that is what is happening).
- coliveira 6y agoComplete non-sense. The Congress has a prerogative of creating laws. It can decide what will happen in situations exactly like the social media case we see now. Executive orders, in a functioning democracy, should be the last resort for situations in which the president needs to act fast, for example, a war (already declared by Congress, by the way) or natural disaster situation. What we see happening in the US is the fossilization of an authoritarian regime where the president creates de facto laws in the stroke of his pen and the Senate supports his undemocratic behavior, while Congress is kept powerless. The only thing left to check for abuses is the judiciary system, which has not been elected in the first place, and by the way can only limit the worst illegal excesses. It is essentially a "constitutional autocracy" in practice.