6 ms·

Yeah... there's no such provision. The only mentions of the president in that bill are: 1. In the definition of a "covered company". The bill itself already sa

Yeah... there's no such provision. The only mentions of the president in that bill are: 1. In the definition of a "covered company". The bill itself already saus that TikTok is covered; this is only a provision to add other companies to the list. 2. In determining what qualifies as "divestiture" to have the ban lifted. That's described as happening when - > the President determines, through an interagency process... "TikTok wrote me a big check and said nice things about me" isn't an interagency process. Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president.* He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon. He can't grant pardons, he can't lift law enforcement decisions, and he can't write executive orders. The promise of an executive order, even if such an order would be lawful tomorrow (which I can't understand how it would be), is not a legal document that can make something legal today.

Karrot_Kream 2y ago
Since you ignored the passage I linked, let me qute it for you and the surrounding context if it helps you learn to read: (a) Right of action.—A petition for review challenging this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (b) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act. (c) Statute of limitations.—A challenge may only be brought— (1) in the case of a challenge to this Act, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this Act, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination. ^ That is where the 90 day stipulation came from. === > Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president. Right okay, what does one do with that information? It's common practice for Presidents to collaborate with their successors during the handoff period. Both the Biden and the incoming Trump administrations collaborated on the Gaza ceasefire, as way to help gradually transition power.
flanked-evergl 2y ago
Bro is upset about Trump using a clause in a law, but has no problem with Biden and Kahmahlah declaring that something is part of the constitution based on absolutely nothing. Bro … after what Biden and Kahmahlah did, there is no valid criticism that any Democrat can have of Trump. Anything short of abolishing the constitution, as Biden and Kahmahlah tried, is less bad than what Biden and Kahmahlah did.
- sethammons 2y ago
  I missed that one: how did Biden snd Harris try to abolish the constitution?
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5264378/biden-era-national-archivist-constitution https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5264378/biden-era-natio... > Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment is law. What happens next is unclear > In response to an NPR question about whether the archivist would take any new actions, the National Archives communications staff pointed to a December statement saying that the ERA "cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions."
    - gnz11 2y ago
      That has literally nothing to do with attempting to abolish the US Constitution.
      - flanked-evergl 2y ago
        If a president can decree amendments, the Constitution means nothing. If you can break the constitution to change it, as Biden attempted, then how do you have a constitution?
        gnz11 2y ago
        I’m not sure what to say other than that you have a bizarre interpretation of the article. I mean in no way, shape or form is Biden trying to abolish the US Constitution.
sethammons 2y ago
> He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon For very weak definitions of power. Zuck didn't wait to bend a knee until the inauguration. Because power.

Karrot_Kream 2y ago

Since you ignored the passage I linked, let me qute it for you and the surrounding context if it helps you learn to read: (a) Right of action.—A petition for review challenging this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (b) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any challenge to this Act or any action, finding, or determination under this Act. (c) Statute of limitations.—A challenge may only be brought— (1) in the case of a challenge to this Act, not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and (2) in the case of a challenge to any action, finding, or determination under this Act, not later than 90 days after the date of such action, finding, or determination. ^ That is where the 90 day stipulation came from. === > Moreover, just in case we've forgotten, *Donald Trump is not currently the president. Right okay, what does one do with that information? It's common practice for Presidents to collaborate with their successors during the handoff period. Both the Biden and the incoming Trump administrations collaborated on the Gaza ceasefire, as way to help gradually transition power.

flanked-evergl 2y ago

Bro is upset about Trump using a clause in a law, but has no problem with Biden and Kahmahlah declaring that something is part of the constitution based on absolutely nothing. Bro … after what Biden and Kahmahlah did, there is no valid criticism that any Democrat can have of Trump. Anything short of abolishing the constitution, as Biden and Kahmahlah tried, is less bad than what Biden and Kahmahlah did.

sethammons 2y ago
I missed that one: how did Biden snd Harris try to abolish the constitution?
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5264378/biden-era-national-archivist-constitution https://www.npr.org/2025/01/17/nx-s1-5264378/biden-era-natio... > Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment is law. What happens next is unclear > In response to an NPR question about whether the archivist would take any new actions, the National Archives communications staff pointed to a December statement saying that the ERA "cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions."
  - gnz11 2y ago
    That has literally nothing to do with attempting to abolish the US Constitution.
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      If a president can decree amendments, the Constitution means nothing. If you can break the constitution to change it, as Biden attempted, then how do you have a constitution?
      - gnz11 2y ago
        I’m not sure what to say other than that you have a bizarre interpretation of the article. I mean in no way, shape or form is Biden trying to abolish the US Constitution.

sethammons 2y ago

> He has literally zero power until tomorrow afternoon For very weak definitions of power. Zuck didn't wait to bend a knee until the inauguration. Because power.