> Within minutes it seems we already have comments claiming that this is pointless because it's already what the law says, and also implying that this is pointl

> Within minutes it seems we already have comments claiming that this is pointless because it's already what the law says, and also implying that this is pointless because it disagrees with the law and will therefore be reverted by the judicial branch. I don't see anyone claiming that the law already provides for this punishment, every post on the existing law says this conflicts with it, explicitly or, in one case, implicitly. Are you perhaps misreading the “settled case law” post which does rely on the reader knowing the existing case law? > These clearly can't both be true... ? It is in conflict with existing Constitutional case law, but those claiming it is a nullity with no significance for that reason are nonetheless incorrect both because quite a lot of damage can be done before courts act and because there is no guarantee of how the current Supreme Court will act just because the existing case law is clear. And, frankly, because the present administration, when it wants to punish without legal basis, doesn't just fold when the courts strike down what it is doing, but shifts theoretical basis and continues applying punishment.