3 ms·
Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law
- msie 2y agoWhat utter nonsense! Of course his diehard followers will have no problems with this. I wonder about the more intelligent people who voted for him. Any regrets?
- jrs235 2y agoYet they would crap their pants if the other party's candidate did it.
- pmdulaney 2y agoWell, I think we can save a good chunk of money by getting rid of the Supreme Court.
- bediger4000 2y agoThis seems like crossing a thick, bright red line as far as representative democracy.
- maga_2020 2y ago[flagged]
- nobankai 2y ago1. Everyone that clicked to the article instead of reacting to the HN-edited headline knows this. 2. That does not make it any less unconstitutional, nor does it ensure checks and balances are observed.
- quantified 2y ago> "President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch" What was the half-truth?
- jrs235 2y agoWant inefficiency? Don't delegate and create bottlenecks due to only one or two humans from being able to do things...
- jfengel 2y agoIt's very efficient. You don't need to spend all that time marshalling arguments before a court. You need a decision made, the President makes it based on his mood, and you're off. It is widely noted that dictatorships are extremely efficient. Hamlet complained about "the law's delay" 400 years ago. There are many who would prefer a less efficient system.
- rsynnott 2y ago> It is widely noted that dictatorships are extremely efficient. I mean... define 'efficient'. They rarely have particularly efficient or productive economies or public services. They can make _laws_ quickly, but it more or less ends there. (China's kind of the exception, but it's not at all a typical dictatorship.)
- gaganyaan 2y ago[flagged]