7 ms·

> the Executive branch simply does not have the authority to cancel or postpone elections The executive branch doesn't have the authority of nearly anything it

by bmitc 7mo ago

> the Executive branch simply does not have the authority to cancel or postpone elections The executive branch doesn't have the authority of nearly anything it now does. That hasn't stopped it.

vetrom 7mo ago
Do you mean to say that the Executive Branch does not have the authority to govern in accordance of the rougly 58% of the electorate which voted for them? Do you mean that they are exceeding ther mandate as defined by the written, customary, and precedential body of law? Do you mean that the government just dosent matter and that we should not be a nation of laws? I don't really think those are questions in scope for HN, but people that I have a good reason to think don't understand plain basics of U.S. Constitutional law are opining otherwise. For example, unlike Italy where I'm guessing the parent commentor hails from, or the Russian Federation of which Putin's activities have been quoted, U.S. law does not permit the President to unilaterally change elections. That is the singular point at issue here.
- camillomiller 7mo ago
  Wow, normalizers like you are exactly why America is fucked.
  - vetrom 7mo ago
    Okay, but what about my questions? Regardless of what you think of me, are those assertions invalid? How so?
    - camillomiller 7mo ago
      >>Do you mean to say that the Executive Branch does not have the authority to govern in accordance of the rougly 58% of the electorate which voted for them? It has the authority to do that, it does not have the authority to break the law, which applies to them as well. The majority didn't elect trump to be king. Actions like the Tariffs and deployment of ICE in Minnesota, or the DOJ not prosecuting clear crimes from the Epstein Files are all indications that they, how to put, do not give a fuck. >>Do you mean that they are exceeding ther mandate as defined by the written, customary, and precedential body of law? Yes, provably so. In fact the tariffs are a good example, of both the illegal nature of Trump's executive decision and his complete carelessness about the decision of the supreme court. >>Do you mean that the government just dosent matter and that we should not be a nation of laws? You should, and your government is right now a group of grifters with no qualification who are trying to dismantle exactly that, one step at a time. Your attempts at justifying their behaviour with legal finesse is a travesty and a clear dialectical game in favor of their objectives, and I would consider you an accomplice to their illegal plan to take over the USA.

by bmitc 7mo ago

> the Executive branch simply does not have the authority to cancel or postpone elections The executive branch doesn't have the authority of nearly anything it now does. That hasn't stopped it.

vetrom 7mo ago

Do you mean to say that the Executive Branch does not have the authority to govern in accordance of the rougly 58% of the electorate which voted for them? Do you mean that they are exceeding ther mandate as defined by the written, customary, and precedential body of law? Do you mean that the government just dosent matter and that we should not be a nation of laws? I don't really think those are questions in scope for HN, but people that I have a good reason to think don't understand plain basics of U.S. Constitutional law are opining otherwise. For example, unlike Italy where I'm guessing the parent commentor hails from, or the Russian Federation of which Putin's activities have been quoted, U.S. law does not permit the President to unilaterally change elections. That is the singular point at issue here.

camillomiller 7mo ago
Wow, normalizers like you are exactly why America is fucked.
- vetrom 7mo ago
  Okay, but what about my questions? Regardless of what you think of me, are those assertions invalid? How so?
  - camillomiller 7mo ago
    >>Do you mean to say that the Executive Branch does not have the authority to govern in accordance of the rougly 58% of the electorate which voted for them? It has the authority to do that, it does not have the authority to break the law, which applies to them as well. The majority didn't elect trump to be king. Actions like the Tariffs and deployment of ICE in Minnesota, or the DOJ not prosecuting clear crimes from the Epstein Files are all indications that they, how to put, do not give a fuck. >>Do you mean that they are exceeding ther mandate as defined by the written, customary, and precedential body of law? Yes, provably so. In fact the tariffs are a good example, of both the illegal nature of Trump's executive decision and his complete carelessness about the decision of the supreme court. >>Do you mean that the government just dosent matter and that we should not be a nation of laws? You should, and your government is right now a group of grifters with no qualification who are trying to dismantle exactly that, one step at a time. Your attempts at justifying their behaviour with legal finesse is a travesty and a clear dialectical game in favor of their objectives, and I would consider you an accomplice to their illegal plan to take over the USA.