3 ms·

The silliness of the ban itself aside, it is wild how casually the whole “both chambers of congress passed a law and that law was upheld by the highest federal

The silliness of the ban itself aside, it is wild how casually the whole “both chambers of congress passed a law and that law was upheld by the highest federal court but maybe it won’t be a law if one guy decides he doesn’t like it” thing is being treated by the media. It is like “Does America have laws?” is a 3 minute section of Good Morning America between low-carb breakfast recipes and the memoir of a skateboarding dog.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
DangitBobby 2y ago
> but maybe it won’t be a law if one guy decides he doesn’t like it Are you talking about a presidential veto? What are you saying?
- jrflowers 2y ago
  No. The opportunity for a presidential veto in our system happened in April of last year. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-tiktok-ban-what-next/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-tiktok-ban-what...
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    You've ruled out my only guess, but you still haven't explained what you're talking about!
    - dpkirchner 2y ago
      Biden will probably not enforce the ban (no fines) and Trump will likely continue that non-enforcement, essentially nullifying the will of Congress and judgement of the court.
      - kshacker 2y ago
        I think Biden talk is a nothing burger. You need time to enforce things. Ban goes into effect on the 19th. Do they send out violation notice on 19th (Sunday), 20th (Monday and holiday and transition day) or 21st (first working day) when Biden administration does not exist.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        I don’t understand, why wouldn’t they send it out on the 19th? Because it’s Sunday? Laws aren’t weekday-only last I checked.
        kshacker 2y ago
        Yes. Not all offices are open on weekends. Of course armed forces are of course police are working but should all agencies be open every day? And are they? Check your neighborhood. Post office may be open on Saturday but not Sunday and definitely not on MlK day. Check the city hall. Check the bill payment in-person windows. Check the social security agency. Some problems such as LA fires require immediate response, some problems require an escalation mechanism and many others can be dealt during regular business hours.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        A law was passed with a date attached to it, and it is very high profile. My local post office has nothing to do with anything. Stop.
        jrflowers 2y ago
        I think the point being made here is that many offices, including but not limited to your local post office, are closed on Sundays. They were not saying that your specific local post office is integral to enforcing the TikTok ban. Is there a section in the text of the law that says that enforcement has to happen outside of normal office hours or do you just assume that’s the case because the law is being talked about in the news?
    - warner25 2y ago
      I think the idea is that Trump wields enormous (unprecedented?) control over the members of his party, and thus effectively controls both houses of Congress for at least the next two years. I assume he'll quickly get whatever legislation he wants sent to his desk for signature. I'm wondering how long it takes before the Senate invokes the "nuclear option" on what still requires a filibuster-proof majority to pass.
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        He has a one seat majority in the House. That means he needs actual complete buy in from every single Republican house member to pass something if the Democrats completely oppose it. He had more than that during his last term, so this term should be harder to get things done then last time.
        warner25 2y ago
        Good point - I didn't realize that the new majorities are more narrow than they were in 2017 - but my observation is that he has more control now over these more narrow majorities. In 2017, there were still a lot of "Never Trump" or at least "old establishment" Republicans, and the party had its own brand and ideology that was distinct from Trump. That no longer seems to be the case. And the degree to which he can deploy an angry mob against any Republican that stands up to him, threatening primary challenges or worse, seems totally unprecedented to me. I say this as a registered Republican since the Bush era who has never voted for Trump. I don't feel like anyone in the party represents me anymore.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        There only needs to be one Republican in the house who doesn't like the bill, and we already know that Trump doesn't do even a little bit of bipartisanship (nor I doubt he will start in this next term). He only has a couple of years to pass bills also, it is unlikely that the Republicans retain control of the house after the next midterm (unless Trump is popular).
    - 63 2y ago
      The power in question is the president's power over the executive branch of government, e.g. the department of Justice. If the president orders it, the department of Justice could choose to feign ignorance and simply not fine any offending parties under this law. Obviously this is an immense power that should be wielded with the utmost care but at this point I'm not sure anyone cares.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- LeifCarrotson 2y ago
  The headline on HN was updated, but it's in the key points on the article: > Although President-elect Donald Trump could choose to not enforce the law... Which is ridiculous. It's the executive branch's function to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" [1]. The president's DOJ can't simply refuse to enforce the law. There's some debate over whether this applies to 'enforcement discretion', in that the president doesn't have infinite resources to perfectly execute the law and some things will slip through, or whether the president can decline to enforce a law that he believes to be unconstitutional before the supreme court declares it to be so. In theory, no, the president can't simply decline to enforce a law, congress would then be able to impeach and remove him. In practice, though it happens a little bit all the time. And even if this was black and white, I don't know that there's anything that the incoming president can do that the incoming congress would impeach him for. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-5/ALDE_00000102/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-5/... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...
  - mcmcmc 2y ago
    Can they not impeach him for being a convicted felon? Kinda the definition of “high crimes”
    - yieldcrv 2y ago
      The DOJ isn’t involved in that so no
    - warner25 2y ago
      Who is "they" in this sentence? You mean the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress who (nearly) all have their seats at this point only because they appealed to Trump's mob of followers? He could be impeached for all manner of things, but (as the parent comment said) I don't know what it would take for these Republicans to do it. When he first took office in 2017, I figured that it would happen within six months. Given that he was impeached twice, I was almost right, but it didn't happen until Democrats won the House. Even most of the "old establishment" Republicans ended up backing him. Now there are none of those remaining.
diob 2y ago
As with anywhere, laws are toothless without enforcement. In some cases, they are enforced ruthlessly on one group of people, and not on others. This is a feature, not a mistake, by the way. Well, a feature for those with power, not normal citizens. The real question is: "Does America have justice?" It's not a recent one either. The issue of select enforcement of our laws has been around as long as I can recall, and before I was born. It's not even unique to the United States. What I find most upsetting as part of the normal citizenry, is that rather than taking things to court and finding that the laws need changed, they tend to go the route of charges dropped or pardons when the laws affect them. I would have less of an issue with the rich and powerful folks avoiding prosecution if they at least did it in a precedent setting way for the rest of us. That's the injustice.
- bnetd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    I agree you shouldn't be allowed to express opinions on law without having passed the bar, and posit you shouldn't be allowed to write on a public forum unless you've got at least a BA in English Composition.
    - bnetd 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - DangitBobby 2y ago
        Ok. You've said nothing of substance, really just yelled about how you don't care about the distinction between Law and Justice. If you'd like to say something substantial about why Justice shouldn't be something people are concerned about, or specific issues with the opinion in question, that would be welcome.
        2y ago
keiferski 2y ago
Knowledge of civics among the media is unfortunately not much higher than the average person, which is a real failure considering that they are supposed to be an entire “estate” of democratic society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
nashashmi 2y ago
“I was proud to join 352 of my Republican and Democrat colleagues and pass H.R. 7521 today. CCP-controlled TikTok is an enormous threat to U.S. national security and young Americans’ mental health. This past week demonstrated the Chinese Communist Party is capable of mobilizing the platform’s users to a range of dangerous, destabilizing actions. The Senate must pass this bill and send it to the president’s desk immediately.”[1] [1] https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/chairman-mccaul-issues-statement-on-bill-addressing-critical-tiktok-threat/ https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/chairman-mcca... U.S. national security: "mobilizing the platform’s users to a range of dangerous, destabilizing actions" And give me a break on "young Americans’ mental health". This bill was about pro-Palestine content ... "being mobilized by CCP" and was harming young people's health. The fact that none of this was put forward by the lawyers makes me think the tiktok lawyers were incompetent.
- kevinventullo 2y ago
  The fact that none of this was put forward by the lawyers makes me think the tiktok lawyers were incompetent. Or they knew it would get them nowhere because they understand precisely how unpopular pro-Palestine sentiment is among lawmakers.
cryptonector 2y ago
Both Biden and Trump have said that they will not enforce this law. So not just "one guy", but two :)
- epoxia 2y ago
  It is one. The other one is already out the door and just said "your problem not mine".
iaseiadit 2y ago
This is just checks-and-balances at work, is it not? It’s by design.
- 63 2y ago
  What checks remain to counter this power? Impeachment? Constitutional amendment? As I understand it, if the president chooses not to enforce a law, then the only real recourse Congress has is a massive escalation that requires an extremely high level of cooperation. I'm not sure it was ever intended for the executive branch to simply ignore the other two branches and unilaterally decide how to run things. Personally I think willfully refusing to enforce the law of the land should be an impeachable offense but I guess that's not how it works.
  - dlcarrier 2y ago
    The judicial and executive branches are checks on the legislative branch. The entire point of a check is that it can't be overridden. If the judicial branch determines that a law is unconstitutional or the executive branch determines that it should not be enforced, than that's it; it's dead. The legislative branch can try again with another law, but if it doesn't change whatever made the law unconstitutional or detrimental to enforce, than the relevant branch will keep it dead. The only condition in which the judicial branch regularly forces the executive branch to enforce laws is when the executive branch tries to legislate through selective enforcement; then the judicial branch will give an all-or-nothing ultimatum, but even then not enforcing is an option, just not selective enforcement.
quotemstr 2y ago
Wait until you hear about how one ordinary guy on a jury can nullify a whole law. Our system is geared to err towards enforcing fewer laws.
dlcarrier 2y ago
Creating three branches of government that all have to agree that a law should exist (legislative) is constitutional (judicial) and should be enforced (executive) has proven to be an excellent method of keeping bad laws from negatively affecting us. Despite being seemingly simple on the surface, it's created a process a bit longer than what a single Schoolhouse Rock video can teach us, and it's too much for legacy media to handle. Maybe they only learned from the aforementioned Schoolhouse Rock video, because they seem especially bad at understanding anything outside of the legislative branch. Not only does the legislative branch need to pass a bill into law for it to become a regulation, without objection by the judicial branch to its constitutionality, but the executive branch needs to write that law into a federal regulation, and the legislative branch can reject any new regulation they believe doesn't comply with the law, as can the judicial branch, who can also reject the regulation if it isn't constitutional as written, even if the original law that created it was. It's no wonder that legacy media's wild misunderstandings of how laws and regulations work only get a small snippet of time, between their more entertaining and feel-good stories that drive viewership and revenue. Fortunately we are no longer stuck with just legacy media, so I recommend finding a news source that actually knows what they are talking about. I've found the best bet is to get news from outlets and aggregators that specialize in a specific topic, shielding them from the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, and forcing them to publish news that is actually correct. This is why I come to Hacker News for my tech news aggregation. For political news, my favorite so far has been The Hill, especially for videos like their Daily Brief and Rising videos published on YouTube. I'm open to more, so if anyone has any recommendations, let me know.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

DangitBobby 2y ago

> but maybe it won’t be a law if one guy decides he doesn’t like it Are you talking about a presidential veto? What are you saying?

jrflowers 2y ago
No. The opportunity for a presidential veto in our system happened in April of last year. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-tiktok-ban-what-next/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/tech/congress-tiktok-ban-what...
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  You've ruled out my only guess, but you still haven't explained what you're talking about!
  - dpkirchner 2y ago
    Biden will probably not enforce the ban (no fines) and Trump will likely continue that non-enforcement, essentially nullifying the will of Congress and judgement of the court.
    - kshacker 2y ago
      I think Biden talk is a nothing burger. You need time to enforce things. Ban goes into effect on the 19th. Do they send out violation notice on 19th (Sunday), 20th (Monday and holiday and transition day) or 21st (first working day) when Biden administration does not exist.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        I don’t understand, why wouldn’t they send it out on the 19th? Because it’s Sunday? Laws aren’t weekday-only last I checked.
        kshacker 2y ago
        Yes. Not all offices are open on weekends. Of course armed forces are of course police are working but should all agencies be open every day? And are they? Check your neighborhood. Post office may be open on Saturday but not Sunday and definitely not on MlK day. Check the city hall. Check the bill payment in-person windows. Check the social security agency. Some problems such as LA fires require immediate response, some problems require an escalation mechanism and many others can be dealt during regular business hours.
        dgfitz 2y ago
        A law was passed with a date attached to it, and it is very high profile. My local post office has nothing to do with anything. Stop.
        jrflowers 2y ago
        I think the point being made here is that many offices, including but not limited to your local post office, are closed on Sundays. They were not saying that your specific local post office is integral to enforcing the TikTok ban. Is there a section in the text of the law that says that enforcement has to happen outside of normal office hours or do you just assume that’s the case because the law is being talked about in the news?
  - warner25 2y ago
    I think the idea is that Trump wields enormous (unprecedented?) control over the members of his party, and thus effectively controls both houses of Congress for at least the next two years. I assume he'll quickly get whatever legislation he wants sent to his desk for signature. I'm wondering how long it takes before the Senate invokes the "nuclear option" on what still requires a filibuster-proof majority to pass.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      He has a one seat majority in the House. That means he needs actual complete buy in from every single Republican house member to pass something if the Democrats completely oppose it. He had more than that during his last term, so this term should be harder to get things done then last time.
      - warner25 2y ago
        Good point - I didn't realize that the new majorities are more narrow than they were in 2017 - but my observation is that he has more control now over these more narrow majorities. In 2017, there were still a lot of "Never Trump" or at least "old establishment" Republicans, and the party had its own brand and ideology that was distinct from Trump. That no longer seems to be the case. And the degree to which he can deploy an angry mob against any Republican that stands up to him, threatening primary challenges or worse, seems totally unprecedented to me. I say this as a registered Republican since the Bush era who has never voted for Trump. I don't feel like anyone in the party represents me anymore.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        There only needs to be one Republican in the house who doesn't like the bill, and we already know that Trump doesn't do even a little bit of bipartisanship (nor I doubt he will start in this next term). He only has a couple of years to pass bills also, it is unlikely that the Republicans retain control of the house after the next midterm (unless Trump is popular).
  - 63 2y ago
    The power in question is the president's power over the executive branch of government, e.g. the department of Justice. If the president orders it, the department of Justice could choose to feign ignorance and simply not fine any offending parties under this law. Obviously this is an immense power that should be wielded with the utmost care but at this point I'm not sure anyone cares.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
LeifCarrotson 2y ago
The headline on HN was updated, but it's in the key points on the article: > Although President-elect Donald Trump could choose to not enforce the law... Which is ridiculous. It's the executive branch's function to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" [1]. The president's DOJ can't simply refuse to enforce the law. There's some debate over whether this applies to 'enforcement discretion', in that the president doesn't have infinite resources to perfectly execute the law and some things will slip through, or whether the president can decline to enforce a law that he believes to be unconstitutional before the supreme court declares it to be so. In theory, no, the president can't simply decline to enforce a law, congress would then be able to impeach and remove him. In practice, though it happens a little bit all the time. And even if this was black and white, I don't know that there's anything that the incoming president can do that the incoming congress would impeach him for. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-5/ALDE_00000102/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-5/... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_5:_Caring_for_the_faithful_execution_of_the_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...
- mcmcmc 2y ago
  Can they not impeach him for being a convicted felon? Kinda the definition of “high crimes”
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    The DOJ isn’t involved in that so no
  - warner25 2y ago
    Who is "they" in this sentence? You mean the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress who (nearly) all have their seats at this point only because they appealed to Trump's mob of followers? He could be impeached for all manner of things, but (as the parent comment said) I don't know what it would take for these Republicans to do it. When he first took office in 2017, I figured that it would happen within six months. Given that he was impeached twice, I was almost right, but it didn't happen until Democrats won the House. Even most of the "old establishment" Republicans ended up backing him. Now there are none of those remaining.

diob 2y ago

As with anywhere, laws are toothless without enforcement. In some cases, they are enforced ruthlessly on one group of people, and not on others. This is a feature, not a mistake, by the way. Well, a feature for those with power, not normal citizens. The real question is: "Does America have justice?" It's not a recent one either. The issue of select enforcement of our laws has been around as long as I can recall, and before I was born. It's not even unique to the United States. What I find most upsetting as part of the normal citizenry, is that rather than taking things to court and finding that the laws need changed, they tend to go the route of charges dropped or pardons when the laws affect them. I would have less of an issue with the rich and powerful folks avoiding prosecution if they at least did it in a precedent setting way for the rest of us. That's the injustice.

bnetd 2y ago
[flagged]
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  I agree you shouldn't be allowed to express opinions on law without having passed the bar, and posit you shouldn't be allowed to write on a public forum unless you've got at least a BA in English Composition.
  - bnetd 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - DangitBobby 2y ago
      Ok. You've said nothing of substance, really just yelled about how you don't care about the distinction between Law and Justice. If you'd like to say something substantial about why Justice shouldn't be something people are concerned about, or specific issues with the opinion in question, that would be welcome.
      - 2y ago

keiferski 2y ago

Knowledge of civics among the media is unfortunately not much higher than the average person, which is a real failure considering that they are supposed to be an entire “estate” of democratic society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

nashashmi 2y ago

“I was proud to join 352 of my Republican and Democrat colleagues and pass H.R. 7521 today. CCP-controlled TikTok is an enormous threat to U.S. national security and young Americans’ mental health. This past week demonstrated the Chinese Communist Party is capable of mobilizing the platform’s users to a range of dangerous, destabilizing actions. The Senate must pass this bill and send it to the president’s desk immediately.”[1] [1] https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/chairman-mccaul-issues-statement-on-bill-addressing-critical-tiktok-threat/ https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/chairman-mcca... U.S. national security: "mobilizing the platform’s users to a range of dangerous, destabilizing actions" And give me a break on "young Americans’ mental health". This bill was about pro-Palestine content ... "being mobilized by CCP" and was harming young people's health. The fact that none of this was put forward by the lawyers makes me think the tiktok lawyers were incompetent.

kevinventullo 2y ago
The fact that none of this was put forward by the lawyers makes me think the tiktok lawyers were incompetent. Or they knew it would get them nowhere because they understand precisely how unpopular pro-Palestine sentiment is among lawmakers.

cryptonector 2y ago

Both Biden and Trump have said that they will not enforce this law. So not just "one guy", but two :)

epoxia 2y ago
It is one. The other one is already out the door and just said "your problem not mine".

iaseiadit 2y ago

This is just checks-and-balances at work, is it not? It’s by design.

63 2y ago
What checks remain to counter this power? Impeachment? Constitutional amendment? As I understand it, if the president chooses not to enforce a law, then the only real recourse Congress has is a massive escalation that requires an extremely high level of cooperation. I'm not sure it was ever intended for the executive branch to simply ignore the other two branches and unilaterally decide how to run things. Personally I think willfully refusing to enforce the law of the land should be an impeachable offense but I guess that's not how it works.
- dlcarrier 2y ago
  The judicial and executive branches are checks on the legislative branch. The entire point of a check is that it can't be overridden. If the judicial branch determines that a law is unconstitutional or the executive branch determines that it should not be enforced, than that's it; it's dead. The legislative branch can try again with another law, but if it doesn't change whatever made the law unconstitutional or detrimental to enforce, than the relevant branch will keep it dead. The only condition in which the judicial branch regularly forces the executive branch to enforce laws is when the executive branch tries to legislate through selective enforcement; then the judicial branch will give an all-or-nothing ultimatum, but even then not enforcing is an option, just not selective enforcement.

quotemstr 2y ago

Wait until you hear about how one ordinary guy on a jury can nullify a whole law. Our system is geared to err towards enforcing fewer laws.

dlcarrier 2y ago

Creating three branches of government that all have to agree that a law should exist (legislative) is constitutional (judicial) and should be enforced (executive) has proven to be an excellent method of keeping bad laws from negatively affecting us. Despite being seemingly simple on the surface, it's created a process a bit longer than what a single Schoolhouse Rock video can teach us, and it's too much for legacy media to handle. Maybe they only learned from the aforementioned Schoolhouse Rock video, because they seem especially bad at understanding anything outside of the legislative branch. Not only does the legislative branch need to pass a bill into law for it to become a regulation, without objection by the judicial branch to its constitutionality, but the executive branch needs to write that law into a federal regulation, and the legislative branch can reject any new regulation they believe doesn't comply with the law, as can the judicial branch, who can also reject the regulation if it isn't constitutional as written, even if the original law that created it was. It's no wonder that legacy media's wild misunderstandings of how laws and regulations work only get a small snippet of time, between their more entertaining and feel-good stories that drive viewership and revenue. Fortunately we are no longer stuck with just legacy media, so I recommend finding a news source that actually knows what they are talking about. I've found the best bet is to get news from outlets and aggregators that specialize in a specific topic, shielding them from the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, and forcing them to publish news that is actually correct. This is why I come to Hacker News for my tech news aggregation. For political news, my favorite so far has been The Hill, especially for videos like their Daily Brief and Rising videos published on YouTube. I'm open to more, so if anyone has any recommendations, let me know.