8 ms·

It's crazy to me that TikTok is still operating. A law was passed, the supreme court even weighed in, and a EO cannot undo that. The president has an obligati

It's crazy to me that TikTok is still operating. A law was passed, the supreme court even weighed in, and a EO cannot undo that. The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the law.

jckahn 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pests 2y ago
I do agree and not trying to even comment on the current administration. Hasn't it always kind of been like that? Isn't marijuana illegal too?
- davorak 2y ago
  I would not say marijuana laws are an apples to apples comparison. There are state laws in place legalizing marijuana sales in some states so that ends up being states rights/power vs federal rights and power. In the tiktok case it is federal law apparently not being followed by the federal government.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Herring 2y ago
> The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the law. No no. The president himself is a felon so everything cancels out, see?
BryantD 2y ago
The law provided for a a 90-day extension on the deadline at the President's discretion. However, the extension required certain things to be true (significant progress made on the divestiture, legally binding contracts in place, and so on) -- so I'd agree that this wasn't faithful execution of the law.
- BryantD 2y ago
  I am also going to acknowledge that the new executive order filed on 4/4 is clearly a violation of the law. Or, I suppose, completely meaningless, depending on how you look it.
Maxatar 2y ago
Of course an EO can undo it. The law gives the President the authority to grant a possible 90-day extension.
- pests 2y ago
  The law also says the extension can only happen if the divesture is in progress and steps are being taken, a vote by congress, etc.
  - davorak 2y ago
    Yeah it seems pretty cut and dry, that the laws is not being followed here and their could be consequences for the companies breaking it if either Trump changes his mind or a future DOJ decides to press the matter. Not clear what(edit) legal arguments/advise behind the scenes convinced google and apple to put tiktok back in their stores after they had removed it on Jan 18th.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dmix 2y ago
> The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the law. The president can instruct (or basically ask) DOJ to delay enforcement, similar to how they can instruct federal agencies to prioritize certain types of crime, but it can't override a law. The EO gave a 75 days temporary delay which is ending soon as the article says
- davorak 2y ago
  > The president can instruct (or basically ask) DOJ to delay enforcement That does not change if the law has been broken though or that those breaking can be punished for breaking the law though to my understanding. So in cases where a president asks for something not to be enforced a future DOJ, even under the same president, would be enabled to press charges to my understanding.
eddythompson80 2y ago
Is that really what’s crazy to you? The law was crazy. The litigations based on it were crazy. The final manifestation of it all in pop culture is 100% crazy.
mullingitover 2y ago
> It's crazy to me that TikTok is still operating Not at all, I don't think our elderly political leadership really had a grasp on how massive Tiktok is with GenZ and younger Americans. It would be, to the elderly, like the government unilaterally banning AM radio. There are certainly issues with Tiktok, but it was complete out-of-touch hubris to decide to censor the dominant media platform in the US for people under 40 overnight.
- Henchman21 2y ago
  But that is precisely what someone who cares not for the under-40 crowd and DOES care about power would do?
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    I think you meant "DOES not know how to competently keep a grip on power would do" (or maybe this is what you mean?) Democrats were successfully tarred as being behind the Tiktok ban. Even though it was a pretty bipartisan ban, Trump came out loudly as opposing it and said "vote for me, I'll save Tiktok" and then he narrowly scraped by on election day. His razor thin victory is arguably because of that play.
- from-nibly 2y ago
  No ticktock is not a protocol or airspace. It's a company. It would be like banning Disney.
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
He does, but Trump knows he can ignore the law without consequences (besides maybe being reversed) so he ignores. Other presidents have done the same on occasion but no where near the scale that Trump has done.
9rx 2y ago
> The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the law. To whom? It doesn't bother him personally. It thrills his supporters. Those who wish for such an obligation show no willingness to tar and feather him for non-compliance, preventing their wishes from becoming reality. What's left?
- davorak 2y ago
  > To whom? The presidents oath to his office for one, the constitution, the rule of law, the citizens of the United States. Easy to say whom/what/why. Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > The presidents oath to his office for one, the constitution, the rule of law You cannot be obligated to the inanimate. It would be fair to say that these things are symbols representing people, who you can be obligated to, but that brings us back to trying to figure out who those people are. > the citizens of the United States. Like, as in the citizens that voted for him? His entire campaign was ran on the promise of going off to do as he pleases, so there there was no such obligation established there. Not everyone voted for him, to be sure, but they are primarily the group that wishes there was that obligation. They have not (to this point) established the obligation. > Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms. You can't, really. Without motivation, there is no obligation. While that motivation can come from within or, say, social pressure, the president already has those satisfied. He doesn't care personally and anyone else he might want to impress supports him. That only leaves those who are willing to exert a compelling force, and that doesn't appear to exist. Let's not confuse want of obligation with obligation. I assert that you are obligated to make me lunch each day! But we both know it's not happening. That is not how obligation works.
    - davorak 2y ago
      > It would be fair to say that these things are symbols representing people This is built in to the normal context of the topic. When people talk about the constitution in this situations people are not talking about a piece of paper with writing on it. > Like, as in the citizens that voted for him? ... They have not (to this point) established the obligation. Can you layout the existing cases for him being obligated? You are not addressing any of the common/standard political theory arguments for it here. I can not tell what sort of political theory or government you are proposing here either so I can not respond to that. >> Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms. > You can't, really. Without motivation, there is no obligation. This seems like it is a semantics issue. ": the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow)[1] Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath. "1. a moral or legal requirement; duty" [2] yeah that applies too. "An obligation is a course of action which someone is required to take, be it a legal obligation or a moral obligation. Obligations are constraints; they limit freedom. People who are under obligations may choose to freely act under obligations. Obligation exists when there is a choice to do what is morally good and what is morally unacceptable.[1] There are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, religious, and possibly in terms of politics, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled. These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for non-fulfilment, although certain people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well, whether as a tradition or for social reasons." [3] Yeah that applies to the presidential case too. So you are not using obligation in 100% typical fashion. You really seem to be using obligation as a synonym for ~"enforcement mechanism" or maybe "enforced action" and more often than not that is not how I have seen it used both in everyday life and political theory. I think you are breezing over the existing "enforcement mechanism" and consequences or at least potential consequences for situations like this as well. That maybe because you have a political theory, that is not laid out here, that covers/makes that obvious though. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation [2] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/obligation https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/obligat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation

It's crazy to me that TikTok is still operating. A law was passed, the supreme court even weighed in, and a EO cannot undo that. The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the law.

jckahn 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pests 2y ago

I do agree and not trying to even comment on the current administration. Hasn't it always kind of been like that? Isn't marijuana illegal too?

davorak 2y ago
I would not say marijuana laws are an apples to apples comparison. There are state laws in place legalizing marijuana sales in some states so that ends up being states rights/power vs federal rights and power. In the tiktok case it is federal law apparently not being followed by the federal government.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Herring 2y ago

> The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the law. No no. The president himself is a felon so everything cancels out, see?

BryantD 2y ago

The law provided for a a 90-day extension on the deadline at the President's discretion. However, the extension required certain things to be true (significant progress made on the divestiture, legally binding contracts in place, and so on) -- so I'd agree that this wasn't faithful execution of the law.

BryantD 2y ago
I am also going to acknowledge that the new executive order filed on 4/4 is clearly a violation of the law. Or, I suppose, completely meaningless, depending on how you look it.

Maxatar 2y ago

Of course an EO can undo it. The law gives the President the authority to grant a possible 90-day extension.

pests 2y ago
The law also says the extension can only happen if the divesture is in progress and steps are being taken, a vote by congress, etc.
- davorak 2y ago
  Yeah it seems pretty cut and dry, that the laws is not being followed here and their could be consequences for the companies breaking it if either Trump changes his mind or a future DOJ decides to press the matter. Not clear what(edit) legal arguments/advise behind the scenes convinced google and apple to put tiktok back in their stores after they had removed it on Jan 18th.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dmix 2y ago

> The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the law. The president can instruct (or basically ask) DOJ to delay enforcement, similar to how they can instruct federal agencies to prioritize certain types of crime, but it can't override a law. The EO gave a 75 days temporary delay which is ending soon as the article says

davorak 2y ago
> The president can instruct (or basically ask) DOJ to delay enforcement That does not change if the law has been broken though or that those breaking can be punished for breaking the law though to my understanding. So in cases where a president asks for something not to be enforced a future DOJ, even under the same president, would be enabled to press charges to my understanding.

eddythompson80 2y ago

Is that really what’s crazy to you? The law was crazy. The litigations based on it were crazy. The final manifestation of it all in pop culture is 100% crazy.

mullingitover 2y ago

> It's crazy to me that TikTok is still operating Not at all, I don't think our elderly political leadership really had a grasp on how massive Tiktok is with GenZ and younger Americans. It would be, to the elderly, like the government unilaterally banning AM radio. There are certainly issues with Tiktok, but it was complete out-of-touch hubris to decide to censor the dominant media platform in the US for people under 40 overnight.

Henchman21 2y ago
But that is precisely what someone who cares not for the under-40 crowd and DOES care about power would do?
- mullingitover 2y ago
  I think you meant "DOES not know how to competently keep a grip on power would do" (or maybe this is what you mean?) Democrats were successfully tarred as being behind the Tiktok ban. Even though it was a pretty bipartisan ban, Trump came out loudly as opposing it and said "vote for me, I'll save Tiktok" and then he narrowly scraped by on election day. His razor thin victory is arguably because of that play.
from-nibly 2y ago
No ticktock is not a protocol or airspace. It's a company. It would be like banning Disney.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

He does, but Trump knows he can ignore the law without consequences (besides maybe being reversed) so he ignores. Other presidents have done the same on occasion but no where near the scale that Trump has done.

9rx 2y ago

> The president has an obligation to faithfully execute the law. To whom? It doesn't bother him personally. It thrills his supporters. Those who wish for such an obligation show no willingness to tar and feather him for non-compliance, preventing their wishes from becoming reality. What's left?

davorak 2y ago
> To whom? The presidents oath to his office for one, the constitution, the rule of law, the citizens of the United States. Easy to say whom/what/why. Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > The presidents oath to his office for one, the constitution, the rule of law You cannot be obligated to the inanimate. It would be fair to say that these things are symbols representing people, who you can be obligated to, but that brings us back to trying to figure out who those people are. > the citizens of the United States. Like, as in the citizens that voted for him? His entire campaign was ran on the promise of going off to do as he pleases, so there there was no such obligation established there. Not everyone voted for him, to be sure, but they are primarily the group that wishes there was that obligation. They have not (to this point) established the obligation. > Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms. You can't, really. Without motivation, there is no obligation. While that motivation can come from within or, say, social pressure, the president already has those satisfied. He doesn't care personally and anyone else he might want to impress supports him. That only leaves those who are willing to exert a compelling force, and that doesn't appear to exist. Let's not confuse want of obligation with obligation. I assert that you are obligated to make me lunch each day! But we both know it's not happening. That is not how obligation works.
  - davorak 2y ago
    > It would be fair to say that these things are symbols representing people This is built in to the normal context of the topic. When people talk about the constitution in this situations people are not talking about a piece of paper with writing on it. > Like, as in the citizens that voted for him? ... They have not (to this point) established the obligation. Can you layout the existing cases for him being obligated? You are not addressing any of the common/standard political theory arguments for it here. I can not tell what sort of political theory or government you are proposing here either so I can not respond to that. >> Let's separate that from enforcement mechanisms. > You can't, really. Without motivation, there is no obligation. This seems like it is a semantics issue. ": the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow)[1] Yeah All presidents do that when they take their oath. "1. a moral or legal requirement; duty" [2] yeah that applies too. "An obligation is a course of action which someone is required to take, be it a legal obligation or a moral obligation. Obligations are constraints; they limit freedom. People who are under obligations may choose to freely act under obligations. Obligation exists when there is a choice to do what is morally good and what is morally unacceptable.[1] There are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, religious, and possibly in terms of politics, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled. These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for non-fulfilment, although certain people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well, whether as a tradition or for social reasons." [3] Yeah that applies to the presidential case too. So you are not using obligation in 100% typical fashion. You really seem to be using obligation as a synonym for ~"enforcement mechanism" or maybe "enforced action" and more often than not that is not how I have seen it used both in everyday life and political theory. I think you are breezing over the existing "enforcement mechanism" and consequences or at least potential consequences for situations like this as well. That maybe because you have a political theory, that is not laid out here, that covers/makes that obvious though. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obligation [2] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/obligation https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/obligat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligation