Lol not mad about any of them, just honest question on how they work figured you all know more about politics and law and figured why not ask tmb
Laws are passed by Congress and signed by the president. They are carried out and enforced by the executive branch. There is surprisingly some leeway and discretion in how that happens. That’s what executive orders cover. They can’t really do anything in direct opposition to the laws that are passed but Congress has deferred quite a bit of authority to the executive over the years and the president, as a result of that, has a lot of room to play. Congress should re-assert its authority and limit the scope the president has to operate so we won’t get these wild broad-ranging swings in public policy.
Not if he hasn’t been given that authority by Congress. He can’t just conjure up new authority from nowhere. He has to have a grounded basis for that power based on laws that have been passed by congress. The federal courts will hear arguments about that authority if/when there are disputes.
Aide threatened to ruin a Politico reporter because she was going to disclose a relationship with the Alexi McCammond before it came out in People. This same Politico reporter was being an asshole to the press secretary last week because D.C. pundits fucking suck and this was her payback. The Politico reporter threw a temper tantrum about not getting her questions answered when the press secretary basically calls on everyone. The aide had to apologize and was suspended for a week. A real big scandal compared to the last four years.
No, Judicial branch has a say as well. That why Trump's Muslim ban kept getting thrown out, because it was unconstitutional.
I'm confused how anyone isn't aware of what executive orders are after Trump made a massive show out of signing them in front of every camera in DC.
The President has authorities granted to him by the Constitution and which are properly the subject of an Executive Order absent any Congressional authorization. An Executive Order can’t be inconsistent with a statute, provided that statute constitutionally directs the Executive Branch to do something. It may implement a statutory authorization, such as imposition of sanctions on the Burmese junta. But there is no statute that, for example, authorizes the President to promulgate immigration enforcement priorities.
EOs have done a ton of damage internationally because they've really driven home that outside of NATO to a degree, no-one can count on US policy consistently lasting more than 8 years. See the latest betrayal of the Kurds, T-Dog trying to pull troops out of Germany at the last minute, or even Joe's abrupt reversal of our Yemen/Saudi policy (which I agree with)
(These are not executive orders, although one could theoretically be forthcoming, but not necessary, with regards to Saudi arms sales)
Sure, I was assuming the laws in question were constitutional. And while there aren’t laws that itemize enforcement authorities on immigration, there are numerous immigration laws that define legal immigration and the scope of the executive branch’s authority to act on immigration and underpinned by the constitution, it’s amendments, and the courts’ interpretations of what they mean. The point being that, barring a corrupted and malignant court system, the president can’t just make laws on his own. He is intended to specifically NOT be a king.
Palmeri was an asshole after she and her bosses complained to aide’s bosses (Psaki). The conversations with the aide and with the bosses was on January 20 and 21, and nothing happened until Palmeri took her account of the call to Vanity Fair this week after the White House blew up her “scandalous scoop” by giving People a feature about the relationship. Also the aide has stage 4 cancer. I mean, this is the shit that Palmeri wanted to talk about on fucking Inauguration Day? Give me a break.
This is the Republican argument against DACA. No statute authorizes the President to ignore the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The law unambiguously states that every DACA recipient should be deported. It’s only through the President’s constitutional authority to execute the laws that the President can decide who is and is not going to be the subject of an enforcement action.
Yeah, it didn’t pass the smell test when I saw the author of the Politico story. It’s really fucking embarrassing and her incessant whining last week makes it worse.
I think the real problem is that there are two parties who don't at all agree on what "America" actually is, and hence they don't agree on what it's interests are. The inconsistency of the EOs are the mechanism and outgrowth of that circumstance.
Sure and if congress really wanted suspend a president’s ability to do something like DACA, they could pass a law funding the specific enforcement of immigration laws against those people or denying them social security numbers or right to work to status or whatever else lies within their authority. They didn’t do that because DACA is actually popular and it’s more likely to become enshrined in law than it is to be eliminated by it. All of the Trump’s tariffs were direct affront to the constitution as he specifically is denied that authority by the document, but they were allowed to stand because congress granted the executive emergency tariff authority by law (which itself seems like an unconstitutional law, but I’m not a Supreme Court justice, so what do I know). The point in all of this is that any of these executive actions starts with an argument for the legal authority of the action being taken. And Trump saying “there’s a thing called article II and it means I can do anything” doesn’t make it so. That only works so long as congress and the courts are willing to entertain that nonsense. Unfortunately, they’ve both been far too willing.
this is true of any country with elections and term limits and isn’t really specific to EOs. I imagine the EU probably feels similarly about the UK rn
Psaki asks the media in the morning for questions they want to ask at the day’s briefing. This is a common practice, done by everyone except Sarah Sanders, so the briefer can actually come to the briefing with informed answers instead of just saying “I’ll get back to you on that.” Palmeri, without evidence, accused Psaki of not calling on reporters whose questions she didn’t like, but Psaki has called on every reporter.
What say you AOC green new deal fans about potential rolling blackouts in OK during historic cold because wind turbines aren’t producing enough....
Not sure what you are saying but there is a city here receiving notices of potential rolling blackouts due to lack of production from wind turbines.
well damn. Given that they are specifically named in the notice....oh yeah solar wouldn’t be doing anything here either
We are like a day away from very serious posters posting "WHERE'S YOUR GLOBAL WARMING NOW HURRR" when it snows in Texas and Oklahoma
this is more of a question of if we are wholesale forced away from dispatchable generation in favor of renewables.
Lol. The website for the company you posted says the opposite of what you are claiming in an update posted today so.. https://www.grda.com/statement-from-grda-ceo-dan-sullivan/
For the record, the state of Oklahoma averages 14 hours of sunlight per day, so I think solar would be very beneficial for people living there
The chud has really caught us in a hypothetical that isn't actually happening under a law that hasn't even been passed. Boy he got us
Intellectual curiosity in this case doesn’t require reading a ton of stuff. If you can’t even read a wiki, maybe knowing isn’t your thing.