5 ms·

The movie "vice" covers this nicely. The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent.

by nkingsy 6mo ago

ericmay 6mo ago
This is simply not true and it's disappointing fear-mongering from Vice (or anyone else who publishes this stuff). The reason you know it's true is because Trump doesn't care about precedent, yet in court case after court case that he or his administration lose they follow the law, even if it is imperfect or later attempted to be argued under a different standing. The same thing that is true for Donald Trump now was true for pretty much all past presidents. Nothing has meaningfully changed here, yet we did not have these same articles before, nor did we have folks who are so caught up in political fervor that they are happy to go along with any ole' article or reporting that aligns with their current beliefs. In other words, articles like those are click-bait, and their sole intention or at least their effect is to cause chaos and doubt in the American government.
- krapp 6mo ago
  Peter, the apologist is here.
- ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
  > Nothing has meaningfully changed here Legally? No. That's what OP said: > The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent. Now if we're talking reality, the realty is that new precedents were set (president acting like a king) which revealed that there are not effective legal checks on US presidents acting like kings (or else we would not have a president acting like a king).
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    Sorry, I just don't agree with your assessment. Anyone can just say "well so and so is acting like a king or queen". Trump, as despicable and annoying as he is certainly says a lot, but he's not doing anything from what I can tell that isn't at least poorly argued that he has a right or legal justification for doing. A king or queen needs no such justification, and if one is going through the motions and being forced to respect the law (again there are shades of gray here) than there is no "acting like a king". But if your focus is on whatever he tweets and therefore he acts like a king, sure. Whatever. I mostly care about what actually happens, actual policy, actual laws and rules, not the theater around it which so many seem to want to indulge in instead of watching reality TV.
    - wizzwizz4 6mo ago
      > A king or queen needs no such justification Sure they do! Take the king that the US's predecessor governments rebelled against, King George III. He was very much bound to the dictates of Parliament. From his Wikipedia article: > Meanwhile, George had become exasperated at Grenville's attempts to reduce the King's prerogatives, and tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade William Pitt the Elder to accept the office of prime minister.[45] Does this sound like something that would be said of an absolute monarch?
      - ericmay 6mo ago
        Donald Trump is also bound by the dictates of Congress and the courts. If that’s your criteria as to who is “acting like a king” and your reference is yet another king who is constrained by the Congress and Courts, I’m not really sure what point your trying to make here. He isn’t a king nor does he act like one in the office of the President precisely because he is following the law (generally speaking, I don’t think it’s pertinent to get into specific details else we get into those same details with all presidents) and because he is constrained by Congress. Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is. It’s a bad argument. Don’t let the reality TV fool you.
        ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
        > Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is. Your placing of King in quotes is bizarre. Like, you see a resemblance between the current president and an actual king, and your takeaway is to try to retcon history and claim the king was not a king? Your argument that someone can't act like a king unless they're breaking laws is a bad argument (and ignores the fact that this one is doing both). Don't let your reality tv fool you. If that's your criteria as to who is "not acting like a king", I’m not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
        ericmay 5mo ago
        > Like, you see a resemblance between the current president and an actual king No, I don't. An actual king isn't constrained by checks and balances, or the law, for the most part. You're just adjusting the definition of king here to fit your argument. For example, you refer to King George being stymied or frustrated by some act of Parliament. Is he a king or president? Our president today (and since the founding of America) is similarly stymied and frustrated by some act of Congress. Are the presidents kings or are the kings presidents? It seems like people are so hung up on the Twitter reality TV sports of politics that they've forgotten what a king is.
- starshadowx2 6mo ago
  They're talking about the movie Vice from 2018, not Vice the magazine.
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    Thanks for the correction. No change in my opinion or writing though.
- AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
  What has meaningfully changed here is the rate at which Trump goes charging across lines that result in court cases. As best as I remember, it has always been the case that executives make decisions that result in court cases. I've never seen it like this, though.
  - ericmay 6mo ago
    The rate is different but at the end of the day they still go through the process and when his administration loses cases they just shut up and lose the case. You mostly don't hear about the, I believe hundreds, of cases that the administration has lost. As long as they follow the rule of law (obviously there are at times gray areas and he is expert at identifying and challenging those) I'm not too concerned. Again the media just whips people up into a fervor because it's really good advertising business.
- edmundsauto 5mo ago
  This is demonstrably false. In the case of removing migrants, the court ordered the practice halt and flights get turned around. The court also found evidence of contempt from the federal government due to noncompliance, although another appeals court stopped the contempt investigation. In the Kiyemba decision, the court identified a pattern of 96 violations across 75 or so cases. Detainees were held despite release orders In family separation cases, courts have required legal representation reinstated and the government refused to comply. In the case of NY vs Trump, courts ordered funds to be unfrozen and the administration refused to comply.
  - ericmay 5mo ago
    I'm not trying to be pedantic, but can you cite the specific court cases or provide an up to date article discussing them so we have somewhere to start? The reason I am asking for this (and no worries if you don't want to dig any of this up) is because each case has specific nuance that is worthy of discussion, and in some cases (pardon the pun) the court order wasn't the final say pending appeal or actual Constitutional authority arguments were pending or legitimate. Separately, if you want to claim that the Trump Administration is acting like a king because they've refused to comply with a single court case, then of course you have to extend that same categorization to any president who has ignored or circumvented a court order. But why stop there? Why not governors or private persons? Why do some have the luxury of seemingly ignoring Congressional subpoenas? The Trump Administration has also lost quite a number of court cases and he has failed to prosecute his political enemies. If he were a king he would be ignoring much more than just a few court orders, folks would be in jail, &c.

The movie "vice" covers this nicely. The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent.

by nkingsy 6mo ago

The movie "vice" covers this nicely. The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent.

This is simply not true and it's disappointing fear-mongering from Vice (or anyone else who publishes this stuff). The reason you know it's true is because Trump doesn't care about precedent, yet in court case after court case that he or his administration lose they follow the law, even if it is imperfect or later attempted to be argued under a different standing. The same thing that is true for Donald Trump now was true for pretty much all past presidents. Nothing has meaningfully changed here, yet we did not have these same articles before, nor did we have folks who are so caught up in political fervor that they are happy to go along with any ole' article or reporting that aligns with their current beliefs. In other words, articles like those are click-bait, and their sole intention or at least their effect is to cause chaos and doubt in the American government.

krapp 6mo ago
Peter, the apologist is here.
ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
> Nothing has meaningfully changed here Legally? No. That's what OP said: > The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent. Now if we're talking reality, the realty is that new precedents were set (president acting like a king) which revealed that there are not effective legal checks on US presidents acting like kings (or else we would not have a president acting like a king).
- ericmay 6mo ago
  Sorry, I just don't agree with your assessment. Anyone can just say "well so and so is acting like a king or queen". Trump, as despicable and annoying as he is certainly says a lot, but he's not doing anything from what I can tell that isn't at least poorly argued that he has a right or legal justification for doing. A king or queen needs no such justification, and if one is going through the motions and being forced to respect the law (again there are shades of gray here) than there is no "acting like a king". But if your focus is on whatever he tweets and therefore he acts like a king, sure. Whatever. I mostly care about what actually happens, actual policy, actual laws and rules, not the theater around it which so many seem to want to indulge in instead of watching reality TV.
  - wizzwizz4 6mo ago
    > A king or queen needs no such justification Sure they do! Take the king that the US's predecessor governments rebelled against, King George III. He was very much bound to the dictates of Parliament. From his Wikipedia article: > Meanwhile, George had become exasperated at Grenville's attempts to reduce the King's prerogatives, and tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade William Pitt the Elder to accept the office of prime minister.[45] Does this sound like something that would be said of an absolute monarch?
    - ericmay 6mo ago
      Donald Trump is also bound by the dictates of Congress and the courts. If that’s your criteria as to who is “acting like a king” and your reference is yet another king who is constrained by the Congress and Courts, I’m not really sure what point your trying to make here. He isn’t a king nor does he act like one in the office of the President precisely because he is following the law (generally speaking, I don’t think it’s pertinent to get into specific details else we get into those same details with all presidents) and because he is constrained by Congress. Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is. It’s a bad argument. Don’t let the reality TV fool you.
      - ImPostingOnHN 5mo ago
        > Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is. Your placing of King in quotes is bizarre. Like, you see a resemblance between the current president and an actual king, and your takeaway is to try to retcon history and claim the king was not a king? Your argument that someone can't act like a king unless they're breaking laws is a bad argument (and ignores the fact that this one is doing both). Don't let your reality tv fool you. If that's your criteria as to who is "not acting like a king", I’m not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
        ericmay 5mo ago
        > Like, you see a resemblance between the current president and an actual king No, I don't. An actual king isn't constrained by checks and balances, or the law, for the most part. You're just adjusting the definition of king here to fit your argument. For example, you refer to King George being stymied or frustrated by some act of Parliament. Is he a king or president? Our president today (and since the founding of America) is similarly stymied and frustrated by some act of Congress. Are the presidents kings or are the kings presidents? It seems like people are so hung up on the Twitter reality TV sports of politics that they've forgotten what a king is.
starshadowx2 6mo ago
They're talking about the movie Vice from 2018, not Vice the magazine.
- ericmay 6mo ago
  Thanks for the correction. No change in my opinion or writing though.
AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
What has meaningfully changed here is the rate at which Trump goes charging across lines that result in court cases. As best as I remember, it has always been the case that executives make decisions that result in court cases. I've never seen it like this, though.
- ericmay 6mo ago
  The rate is different but at the end of the day they still go through the process and when his administration loses cases they just shut up and lose the case. You mostly don't hear about the, I believe hundreds, of cases that the administration has lost. As long as they follow the rule of law (obviously there are at times gray areas and he is expert at identifying and challenging those) I'm not too concerned. Again the media just whips people up into a fervor because it's really good advertising business.
edmundsauto 5mo ago
This is demonstrably false. In the case of removing migrants, the court ordered the practice halt and flights get turned around. The court also found evidence of contempt from the federal government due to noncompliance, although another appeals court stopped the contempt investigation. In the Kiyemba decision, the court identified a pattern of 96 violations across 75 or so cases. Detainees were held despite release orders In family separation cases, courts have required legal representation reinstated and the government refused to comply. In the case of NY vs Trump, courts ordered funds to be unfrozen and the administration refused to comply.
- ericmay 5mo ago
  I'm not trying to be pedantic, but can you cite the specific court cases or provide an up to date article discussing them so we have somewhere to start? The reason I am asking for this (and no worries if you don't want to dig any of this up) is because each case has specific nuance that is worthy of discussion, and in some cases (pardon the pun) the court order wasn't the final say pending appeal or actual Constitutional authority arguments were pending or legitimate. Separately, if you want to claim that the Trump Administration is acting like a king because they've refused to comply with a single court case, then of course you have to extend that same categorization to any president who has ignored or circumvented a court order. But why stop there? Why not governors or private persons? Why do some have the luxury of seemingly ignoring Congressional subpoenas? The Trump Administration has also lost quite a number of court cases and he has failed to prosecute his political enemies. If he were a king he would be ignoring much more than just a few court orders, folks would be in jail, &c.