5 ms·

I hope all the people working in tech today realize that once you let the executive ignore laws that you dislike, it's a very clear path to them ignoring laws t

by boc 2y ago

I hope all the people working in tech today realize that once you let the executive ignore laws that you dislike, it's a very clear path to them ignoring laws that protect you and your companies. You WILL be a target eventually and nobody is going to protect you. This is a slow-motion disaster but too many people are complacent because they think it's not going to affect them. No matter your political leanings we cannot allow a constitutional crisis to go unchecked. Things that we take for granted dissolve rapidly if institutions start grabbing power without consequences. It's insane that Congress isn't stepping-up here.

macinjosh 2y ago
Obama, Trump and Biden have ignored federal cannabis laws for years. Laws and even the Constitution are ignored routinely Snowden showed us that.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  While this is true (to some degree anyway), it seems qualitatively different from Congress (and then backed up by SCOTUS) explicitly banning a specific company (and explicitly banning other companies from doing specific things related to that company) and then being completely ignored by an incoming president who just says "wut? no worries, carry on tiktok". this is not a debate about just what the intelligence community can and cannot do, or what level of enforcement and in what communities is appropriate for a given law. it is a point blank statement "i am the president, and you (tiktok) and you (google, apple) can ignore the law", made in public, without any possible national security justification (whatever level of BS that might normally come with).
  - macinjosh 2y ago
    Biden refused to enforce the law as well. Edit: you all are out here downvoting provable facts.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      I'm not denying what Biden did (or did not do). I'm noting that there is a qualititive difference in Trump's behavior with respect to this law compared with ... well, anything anyone has been comparing it to.
    - noirbot 2y ago
      It's somewhat different to not enforce a general law against a multitude of possible targets and enforcing a law literally imposed against a single target. A lot of people don't get fined for jaywalking and it's not a big deal because it's understood that it's a lot of work to actually cite all of them everywhere, so the difference between the normal level of not enforcing everything and intentionally not enforcing isn't 0 vs 100. This is passing a law that John Smith should go to jail and then deciding you don't actually want to send him to jail. Why did you bother passing the law if you didn't care. Trump literally started all this TikTok banning stuff and now is against it, but isn't actually repealing the law. Congress seems to have just given up too. It's fully lawless.
      - jajko 2y ago
        He is a servant of chaos to use fantasy terminology (due to lifelong mental imbalances that were glaringly obvious way before he got power). Maybe chaotic neutral after all + and - will eventually be summarised, but for now, for most of the world he veers towards evil scale. Maybe something good will come out of this like Europe finally waking up, even now in 2025 here on HN I got attacked for warmongering if I dare say that we should increase defense (literally in our case) budgets. Elephant in the porcelaine shop will make a room for new products for sure but thats not the most important thing that happens.
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      The law went into effect on the last day of the Biden administration. If you are going to traffic in provable facts, “Biden declined to implement enforcement of a new law on his final day in office” is a more descriptive provable fact to share.
    - kelnos 2y ago
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- kannanvijayan 2y ago
  That's a very good point. There are certainly more examples of laws that go un-enforced to reinforce your point. For example jaywalking laws are routinely flouted with little enforcement. Likewise buggery laws are routinely ignored by law enforcement. Along that axis, you are certainly right that it is basically the same as the president unilaterally choosing to exempt a specific multibillion dollar company controlled by a powerful foreign adversary from laws passed by congress with the intent of shoring up national security. This insight is well received by me and I'm sure others.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- foogazi 2y ago
  Yeah, *whatabout* the other guys - they did this too!
- sudosysgen 2y ago
  The executive branch is explicitly granted the power to choose which drugs are or aren't scheduled. The law already having provisions to allow the executive to choose which drugs to ban or not makes the choice not to enforce very different qualitatively.
asveikau 2y ago
This isn't a politics forum, but abolishing USAID without congress was also insane. I don't care if you dislike something USAID does or did, it would require congress to legally abolish it. And a few other things, that's just a prominent example. Congress is pretty much ignoring this. Both parties.
- wordofx 2y ago
  Good thing USAID wasn’t abolished.
- throwing_away 2y ago
  We're in this position because Congress (very pragmatically) ceded their power to the executive. I'm afraid everyone has lost the plot at this point though.
  - ksynwa 2y ago
    How does Congress ceding power work? Is there a due process for this? Or do they just sit back and chill?
    - mikehotel 2y ago
      By the majority in Congress voting to block any attempts to challenge the executive branch. Judges are acting to stay executive orders, but judicial processes are deliberately slow and the current administration seated several current Supreme Court judges. Civil disobedience and mass unrest seems inevitable when the rule of law and balance of powers is systemically undermined.
    - throwing_away 2y ago
      I'm not sure if there's a definitive cause, I'm more describing the overall effect. If you read the source: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ On the "legislative" side: > All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. > Congress shall have Power To ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Meanwhile on the "executive" side: > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; To me, this is pretty clear, at least about things like war and treaties and land acquisition. But it's easy to come up with a ton of examples from all parties that seem to violate these very basic rules. What I would read as very fundamental "violations" of the document are often upheld by courts as being in agreement with it. So, to answer your question, yes, they just sit back and chill with a 76% disapproval rating, but it took 119 congresses to get there. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
shikon7 2y ago
What could Congress do? Make another law that might also be ignored?
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  Just for completeness, Congress’ check on the executive and judicial is impeachment, but this check is somewhat defeated by party politics, a weakness President Washington was prescient enough to warn us about in his farewell address The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. [0] https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/washington-s-farewell-address-1796 https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collect...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
personjerry 2y ago
Isn't this a slippery slope into authoritarianism? How are people not more worried about this? The whole of checks and balances is this, this is democracy literally eroding away isn't it?
- prododev 2y ago
  Many of us made peace with this road a couple decades back and have been focused on building communities locally to survive it. Obama, Trump, Biden, GW ... they were all building the road to this moment together. It's like watching one of those hydraulic press videos - the slow build up of the squeeze has been happening for awhile, we've finally arrived at the point where the pressure is really deforming stuff. But it was predictable for a long time.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  We’re in the authoritarianism part already, the 3 branches are aligned on this. The democrats whole campaign this election was to worry , but they are too committed to process and impartiality to have any effect (and let’s face it, most of congress is too old and/or too rich to give a damn what happens to our democracy in the first place)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by boc 2y ago

macinjosh 2y ago

Obama, Trump and Biden have ignored federal cannabis laws for years. Laws and even the Constitution are ignored routinely Snowden showed us that.

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
While this is true (to some degree anyway), it seems qualitatively different from Congress (and then backed up by SCOTUS) explicitly banning a specific company (and explicitly banning other companies from doing specific things related to that company) and then being completely ignored by an incoming president who just says "wut? no worries, carry on tiktok". this is not a debate about just what the intelligence community can and cannot do, or what level of enforcement and in what communities is appropriate for a given law. it is a point blank statement "i am the president, and you (tiktok) and you (google, apple) can ignore the law", made in public, without any possible national security justification (whatever level of BS that might normally come with).
- macinjosh 2y ago
  Biden refused to enforce the law as well. Edit: you all are out here downvoting provable facts.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    I'm not denying what Biden did (or did not do). I'm noting that there is a qualititive difference in Trump's behavior with respect to this law compared with ... well, anything anyone has been comparing it to.
  - noirbot 2y ago
    It's somewhat different to not enforce a general law against a multitude of possible targets and enforcing a law literally imposed against a single target. A lot of people don't get fined for jaywalking and it's not a big deal because it's understood that it's a lot of work to actually cite all of them everywhere, so the difference between the normal level of not enforcing everything and intentionally not enforcing isn't 0 vs 100. This is passing a law that John Smith should go to jail and then deciding you don't actually want to send him to jail. Why did you bother passing the law if you didn't care. Trump literally started all this TikTok banning stuff and now is against it, but isn't actually repealing the law. Congress seems to have just given up too. It's fully lawless.
    - jajko 2y ago
      He is a servant of chaos to use fantasy terminology (due to lifelong mental imbalances that were glaringly obvious way before he got power). Maybe chaotic neutral after all + and - will eventually be summarised, but for now, for most of the world he veers towards evil scale. Maybe something good will come out of this like Europe finally waking up, even now in 2025 here on HN I got attacked for warmongering if I dare say that we should increase defense (literally in our case) budgets. Elephant in the porcelaine shop will make a room for new products for sure but thats not the most important thing that happens.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    The law went into effect on the last day of the Biden administration. If you are going to traffic in provable facts, “Biden declined to implement enforcement of a new law on his final day in office” is a more descriptive provable fact to share.
  - kelnos 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
kannanvijayan 2y ago
That's a very good point. There are certainly more examples of laws that go un-enforced to reinforce your point. For example jaywalking laws are routinely flouted with little enforcement. Likewise buggery laws are routinely ignored by law enforcement. Along that axis, you are certainly right that it is basically the same as the president unilaterally choosing to exempt a specific multibillion dollar company controlled by a powerful foreign adversary from laws passed by congress with the intent of shoring up national security. This insight is well received by me and I'm sure others.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
foogazi 2y ago
Yeah, *whatabout* the other guys - they did this too!
sudosysgen 2y ago
The executive branch is explicitly granted the power to choose which drugs are or aren't scheduled. The law already having provisions to allow the executive to choose which drugs to ban or not makes the choice not to enforce very different qualitatively.

asveikau 2y ago

This isn't a politics forum, but abolishing USAID without congress was also insane. I don't care if you dislike something USAID does or did, it would require congress to legally abolish it. And a few other things, that's just a prominent example. Congress is pretty much ignoring this. Both parties.

wordofx 2y ago
Good thing USAID wasn’t abolished.
throwing_away 2y ago
We're in this position because Congress (very pragmatically) ceded their power to the executive. I'm afraid everyone has lost the plot at this point though.
- ksynwa 2y ago
  How does Congress ceding power work? Is there a due process for this? Or do they just sit back and chill?
  - mikehotel 2y ago
    By the majority in Congress voting to block any attempts to challenge the executive branch. Judges are acting to stay executive orders, but judicial processes are deliberately slow and the current administration seated several current Supreme Court judges. Civil disobedience and mass unrest seems inevitable when the rule of law and balance of powers is systemically undermined.
  - throwing_away 2y ago
    I'm not sure if there's a definitive cause, I'm more describing the overall effect. If you read the source: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ On the "legislative" side: > All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. > Congress shall have Power To ... declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Meanwhile on the "executive" side: > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; To me, this is pretty clear, at least about things like war and treaties and land acquisition. But it's easy to come up with a ton of examples from all parties that seem to violate these very basic rules. What I would read as very fundamental "violations" of the document are often upheld by courts as being in agreement with it. So, to answer your question, yes, they just sit back and chill with a 76% disapproval rating, but it took 119 congresses to get there. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

shikon7 2y ago

What could Congress do? Make another law that might also be ignored?

jazzyjackson 2y ago
Just for completeness, Congress’ check on the executive and judicial is impeachment, but this check is somewhat defeated by party politics, a weakness President Washington was prescient enough to warn us about in his farewell address The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. [0] https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/washington-s-farewell-address-1796 https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collect...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

personjerry 2y ago

Isn't this a slippery slope into authoritarianism? How are people not more worried about this? The whole of checks and balances is this, this is democracy literally eroding away isn't it?

prododev 2y ago
Many of us made peace with this road a couple decades back and have been focused on building communities locally to survive it. Obama, Trump, Biden, GW ... they were all building the road to this moment together. It's like watching one of those hydraulic press videos - the slow build up of the squeeze has been happening for awhile, we've finally arrived at the point where the pressure is really deforming stuff. But it was predictable for a long time.
jazzyjackson 2y ago
We’re in the authoritarianism part already, the 3 branches are aligned on this. The democrats whole campaign this election was to worry , but they are too committed to process and impartiality to have any effect (and let’s face it, most of congress is too old and/or too rich to give a damn what happens to our democracy in the first place)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]