4 ms·

The president has no authority to rename the Department of Defense, but he and his administration demand consensus under the threat of legal consequences. Just

by RIMR 7mo ago

The president has no authority to rename the Department of Defense, but he and his administration demand consensus under the threat of legal consequences. Just as one example, they threatened Google when they didn't immediately rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" on their maps. Other companies now follow their illegal guidance because they know that they will be threatened too if they don't comply. There is a word for when the government uses threats to enforce illegal referendums. That word is "Fascism". Denying this is irresponsible, especially in the context of this situation, where the Government is threatening to force a private company to provide services that it doesn't currently provide.

drstewart 7mo ago
[flagged]
- inigyou 7mo ago
  It means something violates the law. Am I right?
  - drstewart 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - freeone3000 7mo ago
      The National Security Act of 1947, as amended on August 10, 1949, establishes the name of the executive department overseeing the military as the Department of Defense.
      - drstewart 7mo ago
        Great. Where does it prohibit alternative names?
        freeone3000 7mo ago
        That would be a significant free speech violation, so it doesn't. However, the idea that an "alternative name" should be espoused by the executive branch means that they do not believe Congress should set the name of the department. Which is a point of contention, as Congress set the name about sixty years ago. The act was already amended for a rename in 1949. The problem isn't the name. The problem is the idea behind renaming it unilaterally: the idea the President has more authority than Congress.
    - OkayPhysicist 7mo ago
      Renaming the DoD does directly contradict the National Security Act of 1947, which renamed the Department of War to the Department of the Army, and put it under the newly named Department of Defense.
      - drstewart 7mo ago
        Cool. No renaming happened though. By the way, your illegal use of the term "DoD" to refer to the Department of Defense is pretty shocking. This isn't authorized by the Act of 1947.
    - ok_dad 7mo ago
      Someone with 1200 points after 14 years on HN shouldn’t be pointing out green noobs, especially when they are being very reasonable with their comments and you’re objectively wrong. You used “green account” like a slur.
      - drstewart 7mo ago
        No, I should point out new accounts that are objectively wrong that are trying to stir up division and hate. As should you, if you weren't in a similar position to them. Which it seems like you are?
        ok_dad 7mo ago
        Your comments are all flagged, dead, or downvoted to irrelevance in this thread, it’s clear you’re wrong, go get educated.
dumpsterdiver 7mo ago
> The president has no authority to rename the Department of Defense, but he and his administration demand consensus under the threat of legal consequences. > they threatened Google when they didn't immediately rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" on their maps I don’t want to downplay the government pressure you cited in your second example, so I’ll start by acknowledging - that example, as stated, does indeed look like government overreach to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with what I said though. The stance I was taking is that renaming your own “cool kids” club while you’re in a position to effectively do that - does not amount to Fascism, or anything close to it. No one else is in that club except them, and none of them will be in it later. The moniker will only stick if next group of cool kids carry it. An important part of remaining credible (imo) is being able to support a point directly. When someone reaches for evidence that isn’t directly relevant to prove a point (e.g. Group A performed action B and it was bad, so if Group A performs action C it must be equally as bad), that’s a clear sign of a weak argument. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to stick up for anyone, I’m just asking for stronger arguments.

by RIMR 7mo ago

drstewart 7mo ago

[flagged]

inigyou 7mo ago
It means something violates the law. Am I right?
- drstewart 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - freeone3000 7mo ago
    The National Security Act of 1947, as amended on August 10, 1949, establishes the name of the executive department overseeing the military as the Department of Defense.
    - drstewart 7mo ago
      Great. Where does it prohibit alternative names?
      - freeone3000 7mo ago
        That would be a significant free speech violation, so it doesn't. However, the idea that an "alternative name" should be espoused by the executive branch means that they do not believe Congress should set the name of the department. Which is a point of contention, as Congress set the name about sixty years ago. The act was already amended for a rename in 1949. The problem isn't the name. The problem is the idea behind renaming it unilaterally: the idea the President has more authority than Congress.
  - OkayPhysicist 7mo ago
    Renaming the DoD does directly contradict the National Security Act of 1947, which renamed the Department of War to the Department of the Army, and put it under the newly named Department of Defense.
    - drstewart 7mo ago
      Cool. No renaming happened though. By the way, your illegal use of the term "DoD" to refer to the Department of Defense is pretty shocking. This isn't authorized by the Act of 1947.
  - ok_dad 7mo ago
    Someone with 1200 points after 14 years on HN shouldn’t be pointing out green noobs, especially when they are being very reasonable with their comments and you’re objectively wrong. You used “green account” like a slur.
    - drstewart 7mo ago
      No, I should point out new accounts that are objectively wrong that are trying to stir up division and hate. As should you, if you weren't in a similar position to them. Which it seems like you are?
      - ok_dad 7mo ago
        Your comments are all flagged, dead, or downvoted to irrelevance in this thread, it’s clear you’re wrong, go get educated.

dumpsterdiver 7mo ago

> The president has no authority to rename the Department of Defense, but he and his administration demand consensus under the threat of legal consequences. > they threatened Google when they didn't immediately rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America" on their maps I don’t want to downplay the government pressure you cited in your second example, so I’ll start by acknowledging - that example, as stated, does indeed look like government overreach to me. It doesn’t have anything to do with what I said though. The stance I was taking is that renaming your own “cool kids” club while you’re in a position to effectively do that - does not amount to Fascism, or anything close to it. No one else is in that club except them, and none of them will be in it later. The moniker will only stick if next group of cool kids carry it. An important part of remaining credible (imo) is being able to support a point directly. When someone reaches for evidence that isn’t directly relevant to prove a point (e.g. Group A performed action B and it was bad, so if Group A performs action C it must be equally as bad), that’s a clear sign of a weak argument. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not trying to stick up for anyone, I’m just asking for stronger arguments.