3 ms·

Laws that can be changed on a whim by "executive orders", or laws that apparently can be ignored completely, like international law.

by kivle 7mo ago

shikon7 7mo ago
No, executive orders can't change law and international law, unless ratified by congress, is not democratically legitimized and applicable law in the US to begin with
- wyldfire 7mo ago
  There's a stark difference between de jure and de facto here. Executive orders will brazen, tyrannical effects and are often reined in late or never.
- pixl97 7mo ago
  You mean like the tariffs congress didn't approve? Dictators rarely gain power legitimately, and always keep it with violence.
- tapoxi 7mo ago
  We just started a war with Iran without congressional approval or briefing, so I'm not sure if law has meaning anymore.
  - jonnybgood 7mo ago
    War Powers Resolution. Obviously, there’s a law of which multiple presidents have used. Congress can change this law but there is a law that does give the POTUS this authority.
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - ekidd 7mo ago
      Nope, the War Powers Resolution gives the president broad authority to respond to an active attack on the United States (which makes sense). But it does not allow the President to unilaterally start an aggressive war against some random country without Congressional approval. Not that we live in country where laws or the Constitution matter much right now. It's theoretically possible that some people might someday be prosecuted for breaking laws or violating people's Constitutional rights. But even there, I world expect that many of the law breakers will simply be pardoned.
      - spwa4 7mo ago
        What about the argument that Congress has always gone along with this in the past? I mean it isn't quite that stark, but the last president that actually asked congress for and got a declaration of war was Roosevelt. The last president that asked for and got permission for the use of military force was George Bush (junior) after 9/11 (obv. he meant against the Taliban). Which means all US conflicts are "based on" George Bush's approval for use of military force, about 1 per presidential term: military intervention in Lybia, the campaign against ISIS, campaign against Syria and Iraq militias/continuation against ISIS, and now Iran. Iran is a different scale I guess, but ...
- trinsic2 7mo ago
  LOL. you really believe that?
godelski 7mo ago
Like by an administration who is constantly ignoring and violating both domestic and international law? Like by an administration that likes to act extra judiciously and ignore habeas corups? I wonder where we'd find such a government. Probably shouldn't give them the power to "do anything legal NOR 'consistent with operational requirements'". That's the power to do anything they want
wrsh07 7mo ago
They do note that their contract language specifically references the laws as they exist today. Presumably if the laws become less restrictive, that does not impact OpenAI's contract with them (nothing would change) but if the laws become more restrictive (eg certain loopholes in processing American's data get closed) then OpenAI and the DoD should presumably^ not break the new laws. ^ we all get to decide how much work this presumably is doing
- tredre3 7mo ago
  > They do note that their contract language specifically references the laws as they exist today. Where? > The system shall also not be used for domestic law-enforcement activities except as permitted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other applicable law. Sounds like it's worded to specifically apply to whatever law is currently applicable, no?

Laws that can be changed on a whim by "executive orders", or laws that apparently can be ignored completely, like international law.

by kivle 7mo ago

Laws that can be changed on a whim by "executive orders", or laws that apparently can be ignored completely, like international law.

shikon7 7mo ago

No, executive orders can't change law and international law, unless ratified by congress, is not democratically legitimized and applicable law in the US to begin with

wyldfire 7mo ago
There's a stark difference between de jure and de facto here. Executive orders will brazen, tyrannical effects and are often reined in late or never.
pixl97 7mo ago
You mean like the tariffs congress didn't approve? Dictators rarely gain power legitimately, and always keep it with violence.
tapoxi 7mo ago
We just started a war with Iran without congressional approval or briefing, so I'm not sure if law has meaning anymore.
- jonnybgood 7mo ago
  War Powers Resolution. Obviously, there’s a law of which multiple presidents have used. Congress can change this law but there is a law that does give the POTUS this authority.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ekidd 7mo ago
    Nope, the War Powers Resolution gives the president broad authority to respond to an active attack on the United States (which makes sense). But it does not allow the President to unilaterally start an aggressive war against some random country without Congressional approval. Not that we live in country where laws or the Constitution matter much right now. It's theoretically possible that some people might someday be prosecuted for breaking laws or violating people's Constitutional rights. But even there, I world expect that many of the law breakers will simply be pardoned.
    - spwa4 7mo ago
      What about the argument that Congress has always gone along with this in the past? I mean it isn't quite that stark, but the last president that actually asked congress for and got a declaration of war was Roosevelt. The last president that asked for and got permission for the use of military force was George Bush (junior) after 9/11 (obv. he meant against the Taliban). Which means all US conflicts are "based on" George Bush's approval for use of military force, about 1 per presidential term: military intervention in Lybia, the campaign against ISIS, campaign against Syria and Iraq militias/continuation against ISIS, and now Iran. Iran is a different scale I guess, but ...
trinsic2 7mo ago
LOL. you really believe that?

godelski 7mo ago

Like by an administration who is constantly ignoring and violating both domestic and international law? Like by an administration that likes to act extra judiciously and ignore habeas corups? I wonder where we'd find such a government. Probably shouldn't give them the power to "do anything legal NOR 'consistent with operational requirements'". That's the power to do anything they want

wrsh07 7mo ago

They do note that their contract language specifically references the laws as they exist today. Presumably if the laws become less restrictive, that does not impact OpenAI's contract with them (nothing would change) but if the laws become more restrictive (eg certain loopholes in processing American's data get closed) then OpenAI and the DoD should presumably^ not break the new laws. ^ we all get to decide how much work this presumably is doing

tredre3 7mo ago
> They do note that their contract language specifically references the laws as they exist today. Where? > The system shall also not be used for domestic law-enforcement activities except as permitted by the Posse Comitatus Act and other applicable law. Sounds like it's worded to specifically apply to whatever law is currently applicable, no?