4 ms·
This is nice and all, but what's your point? The congress-people you are maligning are not in office. Meanwhile, the president could fix this easily. If he's
by 001sky 12y ago
This is nice and all, but what's your point?
The congress-people you are maligning are not in office.
Meanwhile, the president could fix this easily.
If he's goint to use executive authority this make more sense for that authority than immigration.
- tptacek 12y agoI don't even know how to parse this comment, let alone respond to it. "The congresspeople I'm maligning aren't in office?" That's not how it works.
- 001sky 12y agolook up the date of the executive order footnoted above... or maybe that's too difficult? you're too smart to argue from ignorance.
- tptacek 12y agoNo. What I'd bet is happening here is that you, like many people, don't really understand how an executive order works. Except in a very specific set of circumscribed cases, the President cannot overrule Congress by fiat. An executive order communicates through the President's own administration how they plan on interpreting the laws written by Congress, and how they will exercise whatever rulemaking authority Congress has delegated to their administration. If the President is declaring through executive orders an intent to ratchet up surveillance of US citizens, that is very much Congress's responsibility to resolve. The President is exercising rulemaking authority carved out by Congress. That authority --- OBVIOUSLY --- needs to be curtailed.
- 001sky 12y agoLOOK UP THE DATES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_theory#Incomplete_contracts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_theory#Incomplete_con...
- tptacek 12y agoLoud non sequitur is still non sequitur.
- 001sky 12y agoyour latin is so intimidating? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8613572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8613572 "NSA's mission, as set forth in Executive Order 12333, is to collect information that constitutes...."
- tptacek 12y agoI remain unconvinced that you are not some sort of particularly clever bot.
- 001sky 12y ago"12333 is not a statute and has never been subject to meaningful oversight from Congress or any court."
- tptacek 12y agoExecutive orders aren't subject to oversight by Congress. But their validity depends either on Constitutional or (as in this case) statutory authority. As I said upthread: the President can issue executive orders like this because Congress has overtly and deliberately allowed him to do so.
- 001sky 12y agoSo now we agree. But that is the point. The order is lawful. So you have the following problem: (1) President <can> supersede an old executive order on his own volition, and without congress's consent. (2) Congress <cannot> supersede said orders without the president's signature[+] ____________________ [+] unilaterally, unless they have veto-proof supermajority etc