I'd like to discuss the pop-up's content. If it comes out to be that one guy, President Trump, CAN pass an executive order that effectively ignores a law that Congress passed AND the Supreme court upheld unanimously, it's a very dangerous precedent.
I think we're beyond creating dangerous precedent at this point. He'll do what he wants and no one can stop him.
Between the Unitary Executive decision with "official acts" in July, and being able to claim democratic immunity by winning the Popular and Electoral vote - I'm trying to grasp whatever straws we have left. If this one is broken, we don't even have the "2 > 1" checks and balances between the 3 branches of government that's taught in every Govt 101 class, so it's good to spell this predicament out for people.
Congress themselves wrote in the president's authority to do this. Although it is unclear if doing it this late would fall within the law.
Your second sentence is paramount, it wasn't written for this far out.
It's definitely an edge case, but courts are not absolutely mechanical and given the context I think it can be argued either way (IANAL). Especially when the outgoing president just told his DoJ not to enforce the ban and leave it to the next guy. At any rate the delay only gives a stay of execution.
Apparently the law has an explicit clause that allows the executive branch to give a 90 day extension if they feel progress is being made towards divestment.
After deadline, though? Even textualists will be hard-pressed to say the enshrined 90-day extension can be exercised after enforcement is actuated - whether by date or action.
Bold of you to assume that rule of law still exists in this country.
Oh it does, try your luck as a layman to prove otherwise. It just doesn't at the top, anymore. And it's brazen.
The law gives the President unambiguous authority to grant an extension to the timeline.
He has to certify 3 things to invoke that extension which he is unable to certify.
True, but that's a low hurdle for the new guy. More generally, its worth pointing out that the law as passed explicitly names TikTok/ByteDance, but locates a lot of authority with the president to determine 'adversary' and 'controlled' in potential future applications of the law.
He can direct the justice department not to enforce a law.
Do you think he should? Do you think it's a healthy exercise in the country's checks and balances for the president to create a precedent where he directs the justice department to not enforce a law when Congress has drafted it, and the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld it? Last time anything like this has happened, it created devastating national history.
I don't think the country fell apart when Obama directed the justice department not to enforce weed laws. [0]
I don't think this compares, but I do see where you're coming from. Whereas the present SC has unanimously upheld this TikTok law, The Court has avoided taking a position on federal non-enforcement of marijuana laws in states where it is legalized
It wouldn’t be the first time an American President decided not to enforce a SC ruling.
Read the last few words in my GP, I know. Also, a law drafted by Congress AND an SC ruling upholding it??
I think actually it would be (if you are thinking of the Jackson one it’s not actually the way it’s popularly remembered)
How do you think Worcester v. Georgia happened in ways not popularly remembered?
How? The bill gives the president a power. SCOTUS has said the law is legal. Nothing compels the president to use the power. See Biden passing it along.
I'll take the bait. What was that last time and what was the devastating national history moment?
I mean the same exact criteria happened in Marbury v Madison and it changed the entire nation's check and balance system, lol. Many will claim for better, but the opportunity is definitely there for worse.
Not enforcing laws by executive decision happens all the time. Whenever police "crack down" on something, that means they were previously letting stuff slide.
The law gives a new power. Doesn't say it has to be used. President can also nuke shit. Doesn't have to be used.
Which would put Google and Apple in a precarious position of ignoring a law because it's not being enforced right now.
Even their blatant appeal to his ego is already dangerous. But will be par for the course for the next four years.