4 ms·

The President doesn’t have to enforce the laws he doesn’t like

by foogazi 2y ago

threeseed 2y ago
In fact given the Supreme Court ruling the President can do anything he likes.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  yea, given that, I think he should dismantle both house and senate and supreme court as part of DOGE. why bother with the rest of the government at all, that was a stupid all along
gpm 2y ago
This is true, but he also doesn't have the power to grant immunity to the law. Tech companies are in a pickle, he's expecting them to break the law, but they can be fined absurd sums of money if they do. Either when they piss off Trump and he decides to prosecute, or if the next administration does 4 years from now.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  Biden refused to enforce the ban[1], so I really doubt democrats would enforce it 4 years later if they came to power again. The issue isn't very partisan, liberals don't hate TikTok much more than conservatives. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/17/tiktok-ban-biden-wont-enforce-decision-trump/77773281007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/17/tikt...
  - gpm 2y ago
    Biden declined to initiate legal proceedings in the last 24 hours of his administration... the only notable thing about that is that it isn't notable. It's hardly going to control what happens 4 years from now. I agree the issue isn't particularly partisan. Both parties were in favour of the ban. The process was started by Trump, continued by Biden, passed by the vast majority of both parties in the house (with republicans more in favor the democrats [1]), and then at the last second both parties realized that it was going to be wildly unpopular... But who knows how political winds are blowing 4 years from now, or 1 year from now, there's every chance it's now something either or both sides wants to take tech companies to task for not complying with. Or they just want to enforce the rule of law and don't care about TikTok. Or they just don't like tech companies. [1] Republicans 197 to 15, Democrats 155 to 50 + 1 present vote https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  Isn't granting a pre emptive pardon just granting immunity? I suppose that's another one for the supreme court to decide.
  - gpm 2y ago
    "Pre-emptive" with respect to pardons is being used as "prior to prosecution, but for past actions". That's nothing new (famous examples include the Nixon pardon, post civil war pardons, etc), but it doesn't grant immunity for future actions like the tech companies would need. Pardons for future actions are generally accepted as not within the power. Cornell law has a cite for this that you could track down if you want https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/overview-of-the-pardon-power#fn8art2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec... Also he's not even tried to do that with the tech companies here, so it's besides the point.
- foogazi 2y ago
  I was being facetious The presidential oath: > I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Article II of the constitution: The president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”

The President doesn’t have to enforce the laws he doesn’t like

threeseed 2y ago

In fact given the Supreme Court ruling the President can do anything he likes.

bdangubic 2y ago
yea, given that, I think he should dismantle both house and senate and supreme court as part of DOGE. why bother with the rest of the government at all, that was a stupid all along

gpm 2y ago

This is true, but he also doesn't have the power to grant immunity to the law. Tech companies are in a pickle, he's expecting them to break the law, but they can be fined absurd sums of money if they do. Either when they piss off Trump and he decides to prosecute, or if the next administration does 4 years from now.

ivewonyoung 2y ago
Biden refused to enforce the ban[1], so I really doubt democrats would enforce it 4 years later if they came to power again. The issue isn't very partisan, liberals don't hate TikTok much more than conservatives. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/17/tiktok-ban-biden-wont-enforce-decision-trump/77773281007/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/17/tikt...
- gpm 2y ago
  Biden declined to initiate legal proceedings in the last 24 hours of his administration... the only notable thing about that is that it isn't notable. It's hardly going to control what happens 4 years from now. I agree the issue isn't particularly partisan. Both parties were in favour of the ban. The process was started by Trump, continued by Biden, passed by the vast majority of both parties in the house (with republicans more in favor the democrats [1]), and then at the last second both parties realized that it was going to be wildly unpopular... But who knows how political winds are blowing 4 years from now, or 1 year from now, there's every chance it's now something either or both sides wants to take tech companies to task for not complying with. Or they just want to enforce the rule of law and don't care about TikTok. Or they just don't like tech companies. [1] Republicans 197 to 15, Democrats 155 to 50 + 1 present vote https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202486
jazzyjackson 2y ago
Isn't granting a pre emptive pardon just granting immunity? I suppose that's another one for the supreme court to decide.
- gpm 2y ago
  "Pre-emptive" with respect to pardons is being used as "prior to prosecution, but for past actions". That's nothing new (famous examples include the Nixon pardon, post civil war pardons, etc), but it doesn't grant immunity for future actions like the tech companies would need. Pardons for future actions are generally accepted as not within the power. Cornell law has a cite for this that you could track down if you want https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/overview-of-the-pardon-power#fn8art2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec... Also he's not even tried to do that with the tech companies here, so it's besides the point.
foogazi 2y ago
I was being facetious The presidential oath: > I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Article II of the constitution: The president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”