4 ms·

I'm confused what exactly allows a president to ban certain uses of electricity? Could a president similarly ban computer games? Or (computer accessed) porn?

MeltingAaah 4y ago
Same laws which allow similar things. Greater good for society would be a good reason. Climate change laws as well. You can't buy lead paint anymore as well. Why do you assume a country can't create new laws? There is also no logical base system which would only allow certain laws to be allowed.
bluescrn 4y ago
If they can ban the internal combustion engine and potentially leave large swathes of the working class unable to travel to work, they could certainly ban energy-hungry high-end gaming machines. The elite will still be able to enjoy private jets and superyachts, though (How else would they travel to climate conferences?)
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Has the president unilaterally banned ICEs?
BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago
I’m going to get partisan for this post, but Blue Team seems far more willing to commit itself towards doing something even if it seems like they don’t actually have the authority to do it. The student loan forgiveness from the executive branch is a good example of this. It has been announced, but it seems like only Congress actually has the authority to do it. But the point is to get it out there and count on political pressure to make it be realized. If they want to get something done, and some interpretation of the law or constitution allows it, they go with it. If a court finds it unconstitutional they regroup and try again, but their M.O. appears to be act first and let the courts decide later whether or not it was something they were allowed to do.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Blue Team seems far more willing to commit itself towards doing something even if it seems like they don’t actually have the authority to do it Both sides do and allege this. From violating confirmation norms (that were always just norms) to breach of decorum in executive authorities (that were always there if seldom exercised) to outright illegality that gets struck down by courts. Congress delegated sweeping authority to the executive via rulemaking (which enables lots of blue team chicanery) while the Federalist society’s broad view of executive power (which enables lots of red team chicanery), together with a series of Machiavellian Senate leaders, from Reid to McConnell, did this.
nprateem 4y ago
Yes. Why is this so difficult to understand? They already have censors rating movies and games and ban kiddie porn.
lern_too_spel 4y ago
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/eecompass/energy-efficiency https://www.regulations.doe.gov/eecompass/energy-efficiency

MeltingAaah 4y ago

Same laws which allow similar things. Greater good for society would be a good reason. Climate change laws as well. You can't buy lead paint anymore as well. Why do you assume a country can't create new laws? There is also no logical base system which would only allow certain laws to be allowed.

bluescrn 4y ago

If they can ban the internal combustion engine and potentially leave large swathes of the working class unable to travel to work, they could certainly ban energy-hungry high-end gaming machines. The elite will still be able to enjoy private jets and superyachts, though (How else would they travel to climate conferences?)

LatteLazy 4y ago
Has the president unilaterally banned ICEs?

BuyMyBitcoins 4y ago

I’m going to get partisan for this post, but Blue Team seems far more willing to commit itself towards doing something even if it seems like they don’t actually have the authority to do it. The student loan forgiveness from the executive branch is a good example of this. It has been announced, but it seems like only Congress actually has the authority to do it. But the point is to get it out there and count on political pressure to make it be realized. If they want to get something done, and some interpretation of the law or constitution allows it, they go with it. If a court finds it unconstitutional they regroup and try again, but their M.O. appears to be act first and let the courts decide later whether or not it was something they were allowed to do.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Blue Team seems far more willing to commit itself towards doing something even if it seems like they don’t actually have the authority to do it Both sides do and allege this. From violating confirmation norms (that were always just norms) to breach of decorum in executive authorities (that were always there if seldom exercised) to outright illegality that gets struck down by courts. Congress delegated sweeping authority to the executive via rulemaking (which enables lots of blue team chicanery) while the Federalist society’s broad view of executive power (which enables lots of red team chicanery), together with a series of Machiavellian Senate leaders, from Reid to McConnell, did this.

nprateem 4y ago

Yes. Why is this so difficult to understand? They already have censors rating movies and games and ban kiddie porn.

lern_too_spel 4y ago

https://www.regulations.doe.gov/eecompass/energy-efficiency https://www.regulations.doe.gov/eecompass/energy-efficiency