3 ms·

>The common definition of “executive order” ... But neither the President, nor executive orders are mentioned in the First Amendment, which was the subject of

>The common definition of “executive order” ... But neither the President, nor executive orders are mentioned in the First Amendment, which was the subject of the question at hand. The issue was not whether something is un/constitutional, but whether something is un/constitutional by dint of the First Amendment. The eagerness with which some wish to skip beyond that scope is interesting.

ugh 15y ago
Ah, so the author cleverly toys with the readers’ understandable confusion when encountering the question. That’s not really a convincing argument but very clever. If I make that one sentence from the First Amendment into the sole law of the land there is no confusion at all. The president is obviously allowed to ban speech with executive orders. Why would anyone disagree with that? This is the setup of the Gedankenexperiment and since it is quite weird it is very understandable that many people would misunderstand it, especially since he is not very clear about that setup. I took it to mean that I’m supposed to interpret that sentence within the framework of US law but somehow without my understanding of constitutional law. That’s obviously impossible. It’s a nice rhetoric trick but certainly no argument. Differences in interpretation obviously matter but the example he picked is complete rubbish and certainly exaggerates the problem in a completely dishonest way.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ataggart 15y ago
  >Ah, so the author cleverly toys with the readers’ understandable confusion when encountering the question. He makes the scope of the questions rather clear from the outset: On the basis of your personal understanding of this sentence's meaning (not your knowledge of constitutional law), please indicate whether you believe the following sentences to be true or false.
- ugh 15y ago
  Ataggart, your response to me is for some reason dead. I don't think that the author is very clear at all. He is deliberately misleading. That sentence is clear as mist.

ugh 15y ago

Ah, so the author cleverly toys with the readers’ understandable confusion when encountering the question. That’s not really a convincing argument but very clever. If I make that one sentence from the First Amendment into the sole law of the land there is no confusion at all. The president is obviously allowed to ban speech with executive orders. Why would anyone disagree with that? This is the setup of the Gedankenexperiment and since it is quite weird it is very understandable that many people would misunderstand it, especially since he is not very clear about that setup. I took it to mean that I’m supposed to interpret that sentence within the framework of US law but somehow without my understanding of constitutional law. That’s obviously impossible. It’s a nice rhetoric trick but certainly no argument. Differences in interpretation obviously matter but the example he picked is complete rubbish and certainly exaggerates the problem in a completely dishonest way.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ataggart 15y ago
>Ah, so the author cleverly toys with the readers’ understandable confusion when encountering the question. He makes the scope of the questions rather clear from the outset: On the basis of your personal understanding of this sentence's meaning (not your knowledge of constitutional law), please indicate whether you believe the following sentences to be true or false.
ugh 15y ago
Ataggart, your response to me is for some reason dead. I don't think that the author is very clear at all. He is deliberately misleading. That sentence is clear as mist.