6 ms·

My read says the law itself is a presidential power, doesn't have to be pushed unless the President wants it

by sethammons 2y ago

sanderjd 2y ago
That's not what the law says. What gave you that impression?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
llamaimperative 2y ago
There is no way the President can commit that these services will not accrue massive fines throughout his non-enforcement period. And actually your read is wrong: the President does have an obligation to enforce laws, it's just in practice there are all sorts of ways one can effectively bury this obligation under claims of different prioritization. They are not really allowed to come out and just say: "I am choosing not to enforce this law because I disagree with it."
- reubenmorais 2y ago
  > the President does have an obligation to enforce laws This is only true as far as other people are ready to keep the president in check. I only have the surface knowledge of US politics, but from the outside, it seems like the American institutions that were supposed to balance the executive power are all being quite successfully sabotaged.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    That's a different argument than the one GP made. One of the things that makes it more difficult to enforce those obligations is people's mistaken belief that those obligations do not exist. So when people say those obligations don't exist, they should be told they are wrong.
    - reubenmorais 2y ago
      Fair enough.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Disclaimer: IANAL. The Executive Branch (President, White House) has a responsibility to execute the law as legislated by the Legislative Branch (Congress) and judged by the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) if applicable. Trump is citing House Resolution 8038[1], Division D, Section 2, subsection A, paragraph 3[2] which states (emphasis mine): >(3) EXTENSION.—With respect to a foreign adversary controlled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that— >(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; >(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and >(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension. In plain English, this means Trump once he is President will have authority to order a one-time up-to 90-day extension to enforcing the ban if TikTok can present evidence that they are in the process of selling to an American entity. If TikTok cannot present the evidence or they still do not complete a sale within the 90-day extension, the ban will apply and must be enforced by the President. As the law in question was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (Biden), the President (Biden and Trump) cannot overrule or otherwise refuse the law with an Executive Order. The President must enforce and act within the powers vested in him by the law. It is questionable if Trump's claim of not penalizing violators of the law prior to an approved 90-day extension is legal; the law allows no such powers to the President. Disclaimer: IANAL. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038/text#toc-HA90B4270C291485E9911950A2789C181 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038... [2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038/text#HD11D9931331B4D92A682A90D5AD3EA2F https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038...
    - IAmGraydon 2y ago
      >In plain English, this means Trump once he is President will have authority to order a one-time up-to 90-day extension to enforcing the ban if TikTok can present evidence that they are in the process of selling to an American entity. There is zero chance he can satisfy A, B, and C tomorrow. Zero.
  - sanderjd 2y ago
    Not yet, but maybe in the near future. We'll see! The ultimate check is too many people getting too pissed.
- AngryData 2y ago
  Why are they not able to not enforce the law? The right for law enforcing entities and persons to not enforce the law due to personal discretion has been upheld many times in the past. Cops don't have to do it, prosecutors don't have to do it, not even judges have to do it although they almost always do because otherwise it creates friction between prosecution and the judge and the judge is likely to get booted for it eventually because successful prosecutions is how law enforcement and courts earn most of their money and unsuccessful arrests and prosecutions is how they lose money. I don't see how or why the executive branch is under any obligations to enforce any laws, feds don't often enforce marijuana laws in legal states despite being federally illegal still is an easy example. The only real check against the president/executive branch is the legislative branch having the power to impeach the president and get them replaced, or by legislatively dismantling or changing the internal rules of a department. They lose their jobs, but aren't liable for anything or breaking any laws I know of. Just the same as states can boot out judges or prosecutors if they don't like how they operate, and police departments can fire officers if they don't like how they operate. At no point did cops or prosecutors or judges break the law by not enforcing the law, they merely piss off the state that is funding them and now losing additional money due to lack of enforcement and prosecution, and I don't know how the president or executive branch is any different.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Go look it up instead of having me explain it to you. You're just verbosely asserting your opinion, and at least in the US, your opinion does not map to how the law actually works. US Constitution Section 2 Article 3: "[The President]... shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      you missed few US government and US history classes growing up, eh? :)
      - sanderjd 2y ago
        You're the one who has this wrong, and now you're being rude about it. The enforcement of the law is not at the president's discretion. That would make Congress powerless. Congress is not powerless.
bokoharambe 2y ago
Still not quite right, not in a modern state. Law has always been sovereign power, and in the modern period the entire state is the sovereign (think Leviathan.) It is strange that Americans seem to think these are personal powers.
- hot_gril 2y ago
  Well, the law as agreed upon by Congress designates it as a personal power.
  - bokoharambe 2y ago
    This is kind of the point, the text of the law is totally ephemeral because the power to violate it is entrusted in the state itself.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the law as agreed upon by Congress designates it as a personal power No, it does not. The extension is discretionary, the liability is not. (And the liability specifically accrues to the operators of the app stores and hosting companies.)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
gsibble 2y ago
The law gives the President discretion to decide what apps to ban essentially. It didn't specifically target TikTok. So Biden decided to ban it and Trump decided to unban it. It's all perfectly within the law.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > law gives the President discretion to decide what apps to ban essentially. It didn't specifically target TikTok Wrong. § 2(G)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) name Bytedance and TikTok [1]. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17758.pdf#page=63 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17...
  - Spivak 2y ago
    Yep, that being said I'm not mad at ignoring this part. Of all the shittyness of this bill, least of which giving the president pretty much unchecked power to ban foreign social media, the fact that it named a specific entity is to me just bad form. Law shouldn't ever include "fuck you in particular" even if the effect of the law when applied will be that.
    - afiori 2y ago
      I am actually surprised that it was not deemed unconstitutional on this basis alone
      - sanderjd 2y ago
        What is the constitutional provision that covers this?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bmelton 2y ago
    In context, you're both wrong. You're correct that § 2(G)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) explicitly name Bytedance and TikTok [1], so it is not up to presidential discretion to add more apps, but § 2(G)(3)(B)(ii) indicates that it is within the president's discretion to not enforce. There are some paperwork qualifiers that for certain have not been met (the not-yet president almost certainly could not have briefed Congress as president 30 days prior) -- but they seem trivial to satisfy, and it would be pointless to initiate enforcement actions for an event nobody intends to follow through on

My read says the law itself is a presidential power, doesn't have to be pushed unless the President wants it

sanderjd 2y ago

That's not what the law says. What gave you that impression?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

llamaimperative 2y ago

There is no way the President can commit that these services will not accrue massive fines throughout his non-enforcement period. And actually your read is wrong: the President does have an obligation to enforce laws, it's just in practice there are all sorts of ways one can effectively bury this obligation under claims of different prioritization. They are not really allowed to come out and just say: "I am choosing not to enforce this law because I disagree with it."

reubenmorais 2y ago
> the President does have an obligation to enforce laws This is only true as far as other people are ready to keep the president in check. I only have the surface knowledge of US politics, but from the outside, it seems like the American institutions that were supposed to balance the executive power are all being quite successfully sabotaged.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  That's a different argument than the one GP made. One of the things that makes it more difficult to enforce those obligations is people's mistaken belief that those obligations do not exist. So when people say those obligations don't exist, they should be told they are wrong.
  - reubenmorais 2y ago
    Fair enough.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Disclaimer: IANAL. The Executive Branch (President, White House) has a responsibility to execute the law as legislated by the Legislative Branch (Congress) and judged by the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) if applicable. Trump is citing House Resolution 8038[1], Division D, Section 2, subsection A, paragraph 3[2] which states (emphasis mine): >(3) EXTENSION.—With respect to a foreign adversary controlled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that— >(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; >(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and >(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension. In plain English, this means Trump once he is President will have authority to order a one-time up-to 90-day extension to enforcing the ban if TikTok can present evidence that they are in the process of selling to an American entity. If TikTok cannot present the evidence or they still do not complete a sale within the 90-day extension, the ban will apply and must be enforced by the President. As the law in question was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (Biden), the President (Biden and Trump) cannot overrule or otherwise refuse the law with an Executive Order. The President must enforce and act within the powers vested in him by the law. It is questionable if Trump's claim of not penalizing violators of the law prior to an approved 90-day extension is legal; the law allows no such powers to the President. Disclaimer: IANAL. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038/text#toc-HA90B4270C291485E9911950A2789C181 https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038... [2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038/text#HD11D9931331B4D92A682A90D5AD3EA2F https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038...
  - IAmGraydon 2y ago
    >In plain English, this means Trump once he is President will have authority to order a one-time up-to 90-day extension to enforcing the ban if TikTok can present evidence that they are in the process of selling to an American entity. There is zero chance he can satisfy A, B, and C tomorrow. Zero.
- sanderjd 2y ago
  Not yet, but maybe in the near future. We'll see! The ultimate check is too many people getting too pissed.
AngryData 2y ago
Why are they not able to not enforce the law? The right for law enforcing entities and persons to not enforce the law due to personal discretion has been upheld many times in the past. Cops don't have to do it, prosecutors don't have to do it, not even judges have to do it although they almost always do because otherwise it creates friction between prosecution and the judge and the judge is likely to get booted for it eventually because successful prosecutions is how law enforcement and courts earn most of their money and unsuccessful arrests and prosecutions is how they lose money. I don't see how or why the executive branch is under any obligations to enforce any laws, feds don't often enforce marijuana laws in legal states despite being federally illegal still is an easy example. The only real check against the president/executive branch is the legislative branch having the power to impeach the president and get them replaced, or by legislatively dismantling or changing the internal rules of a department. They lose their jobs, but aren't liable for anything or breaking any laws I know of. Just the same as states can boot out judges or prosecutors if they don't like how they operate, and police departments can fire officers if they don't like how they operate. At no point did cops or prosecutors or judges break the law by not enforcing the law, they merely piss off the state that is funding them and now losing additional money due to lack of enforcement and prosecution, and I don't know how the president or executive branch is any different.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Go look it up instead of having me explain it to you. You're just verbosely asserting your opinion, and at least in the US, your opinion does not map to how the law actually works. US Constitution Section 2 Article 3: "[The President]... shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    you missed few US government and US history classes growing up, eh? :)
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      You're the one who has this wrong, and now you're being rude about it. The enforcement of the law is not at the president's discretion. That would make Congress powerless. Congress is not powerless.

bokoharambe 2y ago

Still not quite right, not in a modern state. Law has always been sovereign power, and in the modern period the entire state is the sovereign (think Leviathan.) It is strange that Americans seem to think these are personal powers.

hot_gril 2y ago
Well, the law as agreed upon by Congress designates it as a personal power.
- bokoharambe 2y ago
  This is kind of the point, the text of the law is totally ephemeral because the power to violate it is entrusted in the state itself.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the law as agreed upon by Congress designates it as a personal power No, it does not. The extension is discretionary, the liability is not. (And the liability specifically accrues to the operators of the app stores and hosting companies.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

gsibble 2y ago

The law gives the President discretion to decide what apps to ban essentially. It didn't specifically target TikTok. So Biden decided to ban it and Trump decided to unban it. It's all perfectly within the law.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> law gives the President discretion to decide what apps to ban essentially. It didn't specifically target TikTok Wrong. § 2(G)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) name Bytedance and TikTok [1]. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17758.pdf#page=63 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17...
- Spivak 2y ago
  Yep, that being said I'm not mad at ignoring this part. Of all the shittyness of this bill, least of which giving the president pretty much unchecked power to ban foreign social media, the fact that it named a specific entity is to me just bad form. Law shouldn't ever include "fuck you in particular" even if the effect of the law when applied will be that.
  - afiori 2y ago
    I am actually surprised that it was not deemed unconstitutional on this basis alone
    - sanderjd 2y ago
      What is the constitutional provision that covers this?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bmelton 2y ago
  In context, you're both wrong. You're correct that § 2(G)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) explicitly name Bytedance and TikTok [1], so it is not up to presidential discretion to add more apps, but § 2(G)(3)(B)(ii) indicates that it is within the president's discretion to not enforce. There are some paperwork qualifiers that for certain have not been met (the not-yet president almost certainly could not have briefed Congress as president 30 days prior) -- but they seem trivial to satisfy, and it would be pointless to initiate enforcement actions for an event nobody intends to follow through on