3 ms·

look 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 ago
  No. 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 ago
    LOOK 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 ago
      Loud non sequitur is still non sequitur.
      • 001sky 12y ago
        your 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 ago
          I 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 ago
              Executive 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 ago
                So 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
                • tptacek 12y ago
                  Is your whole point that it takes more than one congressperson to change the law?
                  • xnull2guest 12y ago
                    I think what he's trying to say is that due to the relatively lower barrier of entry to (1) than to (2) that it is incumbent on the POTUS to resolve the issue over Congress. His perspective is likely reinforced by a sense that Congress will have difficulty making majority decisions as it has been significantly gridlocked. In general Americans feel that of the branches of government the President represents them the most (it should really be the house and possibly the judiciary...) I think further he is trying to say that the POTUS and Congress that originally published EO 12333 and some associated legislature are no longer in office today - and that this means the current branches of US law have inherited these policies and framework of legal interpretation. I think he means that undoing these traditions would be a departure from accumulated experience, investments and internal processes and thus represents a significant systemic overhall: again raising the bar of difficulty to get something passed. For these reasons I think sky001 is placing the burden on the President to realign the interpretation of the law with modern storage/processing/collecting capabilities.