6 ms·

> nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary Everyone tasked with enforcing a law must necessarily interpret its meaning.

> nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary Everyone tasked with enforcing a law must necessarily interpret its meaning. The judiciary gets the final say though.

colmmacc 2y ago
At least on criminal matters, pardons over-ride the judicial branch.
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  That’s an unrelated issue.
nielsbot 2y ago
Who will enforce following the law if the executive branch ignores the judicial? In theory the military is sworn to defend the constitution, but if the DOD is headed by a Trump loyalist (it is), then what?
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  There is no suggestion that that’s going to happen.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    The Vice-President of the United States is openly suggesting it. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
    - dathinab 2y ago
      and the president did too in slightly more subtle way
    - NotYourLawyer 2y ago
      Not really. Here’s a good explanation from Harvard constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/123-what-vice-president-vance-didand https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/123-what-vice-president-vance...
- xnx 2y ago
  > Who will enforce following the law if the executive branch ignores the judicial? Congress through impeachment. If they don't do that, all bets are off.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    But who enforces impeachment? Who evicts the President?
    - dathinab 2y ago
      And who impeaches a President which just gave himself the right to authoritatively misinterpret the law in whatever way they want and in turn can trivially turn you live into a living hell if they insist too especially if you yourself could get a part of the pie and don't think it will negatively affect you I mean don't get me wrong if they would do so literally tomorrow it would work. But as the majority of senate likely feel they have little to loose it won't be tomorrow. And when they realize that maybe they won't get part of the pie (they are mostly now useless for him) it will be to late and the fear of repercussions will have set in.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      Upon impeaching the President, the VP would become President, and he would order the military to remove the ex-President. At that point the military would have to decide if it's more loyal to Congress or the ex-President.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Why would the President’s hand-picked buddy automatically play ball?
        ModernMech 2y ago
        Because they could just as easily impeach him if he doesn't, then it falls to the Speaker of the House. But if I were them I would just impeach them both at the same time for the same reasons.
burningChrome 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tom_ 2y ago
  The question of whether you'd be happy to have the other guy do it always applies. If you wouldn't, people moaning when it happens is always a good thing.
dathinab 2y ago
you are mixing up different meanings for the word "interpret". "Authoritative Interpreting law" (or in general interpreting law) doesn't mean "trying to understand what it means" but means "deciding what it means in practice" especially if you add a "authoritative" in the front it in legal language means they gave themself the right (i.e. authority) to decide (i.e. interpret) how law should be interpreted, i.e. what the meaning behind the written word is in practice this is 100% without doubt or question not compatible with any democracy (including the US constitution) and is pretty much one of the default approaches Dictators use to get unchecked authority It means that in practice (assuming people comply with the EO) means they can do whatever they want as they can just willfully absurdly, but with authority , misinterpret laws. Including to e.g. persecute judges which "step out of line", or members of the senate which don't vote for whatever he wants etc.
- NotYourLawyer 2y ago
  The DOJ regularly provides guidance about its interpretations of laws. These letters are also “deciding what it means in practice.” https://adata.org/interpretation-letter https://adata.org/interpretation-letter Nobody complains about this though.

> nor does the President "interpret" the law; that is the domain of the Judiciary Everyone tasked with enforcing a law must necessarily interpret its meaning. The judiciary gets the final say though.

colmmacc 2y ago

At least on criminal matters, pardons over-ride the judicial branch.

NotYourLawyer 2y ago
That’s an unrelated issue.

nielsbot 2y ago

Who will enforce following the law if the executive branch ignores the judicial? In theory the military is sworn to defend the constitution, but if the DOD is headed by a Trump loyalist (it is), then what?

NotYourLawyer 2y ago
There is no suggestion that that’s going to happen.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  The Vice-President of the United States is openly suggesting it. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gx3j5k63xo.amp
  - dathinab 2y ago
    and the president did too in slightly more subtle way
  - NotYourLawyer 2y ago
    Not really. Here’s a good explanation from Harvard constitutional law professor Steve Vladeck. https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/123-what-vice-president-vance-didand https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/123-what-vice-president-vance...
xnx 2y ago
> Who will enforce following the law if the executive branch ignores the judicial? Congress through impeachment. If they don't do that, all bets are off.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  But who enforces impeachment? Who evicts the President?
  - dathinab 2y ago
    And who impeaches a President which just gave himself the right to authoritatively misinterpret the law in whatever way they want and in turn can trivially turn you live into a living hell if they insist too especially if you yourself could get a part of the pie and don't think it will negatively affect you I mean don't get me wrong if they would do so literally tomorrow it would work. But as the majority of senate likely feel they have little to loose it won't be tomorrow. And when they realize that maybe they won't get part of the pie (they are mostly now useless for him) it will be to late and the fear of repercussions will have set in.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Upon impeaching the President, the VP would become President, and he would order the military to remove the ex-President. At that point the military would have to decide if it's more loyal to Congress or the ex-President.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      Why would the President’s hand-picked buddy automatically play ball?
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        Because they could just as easily impeach him if he doesn't, then it falls to the Speaker of the House. But if I were them I would just impeach them both at the same time for the same reasons.

burningChrome 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tom_ 2y ago
The question of whether you'd be happy to have the other guy do it always applies. If you wouldn't, people moaning when it happens is always a good thing.

dathinab 2y ago

you are mixing up different meanings for the word "interpret". "Authoritative Interpreting law" (or in general interpreting law) doesn't mean "trying to understand what it means" but means "deciding what it means in practice" especially if you add a "authoritative" in the front it in legal language means they gave themself the right (i.e. authority) to decide (i.e. interpret) how law should be interpreted, i.e. what the meaning behind the written word is in practice this is 100% without doubt or question not compatible with any democracy (including the US constitution) and is pretty much one of the default approaches Dictators use to get unchecked authority It means that in practice (assuming people comply with the EO) means they can do whatever they want as they can just willfully absurdly, but with authority , misinterpret laws. Including to e.g. persecute judges which "step out of line", or members of the senate which don't vote for whatever he wants etc.

NotYourLawyer 2y ago
The DOJ regularly provides guidance about its interpretations of laws. These letters are also “deciding what it means in practice.” https://adata.org/interpretation-letter https://adata.org/interpretation-letter Nobody complains about this though.