Isn't that the road we've been walking down for a while now with the proliferation of executive orders?

I'm not a fan of this outcome either, but it doesn't strike me as a revolutionary departure from current norms.

We're essentially saying the president is a dictator - which I know is what the current president wants, but I sure hope the rest of the country doesn't.

Isn't this the case with the federal government not enforcing its own marijuana sale, possession, and use laws for at least a decade now (in states that have legalized or decriminalized it), across several presidents from both parties? I don't think it's ambiguous what's supposed to happen legally when it comes to Schedule I controlled substances.

It is also important to recognize that Trump isn't just talking about invoking the 90 day extension. He is promising companies they won't be held responsible for the fines they should be accruing for violating the law before he even takes office.

Putting that aside, the legal theory here—where an exception is there for this purpose and we’re quibbling about its application—is nowhere close to “flimsy” when it comes to constraints on executive prosecutorial discretion.

The text of the law isn't totally unambiguous, but I still think it's quite clear that the conditions where a 90 day extension could be granted aren't being met, so we'll have to agree to disagree on how flimsy it is.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1125024/us-presidents-ex...

(Assuming that all terms are the full 4 years long, which happens to be the case for all of the presidents being discussed in this thread)

It's nothing new in that it's something that should have been decided by Congress, not the executive. But I think it's new for the executive to ignore the SC like that. Any counter examples?

And actually your read is wrong: the President does have an obligation to enforce laws, it's just in practice there are all sorts of ways one can effectively bury this obligation under claims of different prioritization. They are not really allowed to come out and just say: "I am choosing not to enforce this law because I disagree with it."

The only real check against the president/executive branch is the legislative branch having the power to impeach the president and get them replaced, or by legislatively dismantling or changing the internal rules of a department. They lose their jobs, but aren't liable for anything or breaking any laws I know of. Just the same as states can boot out judges or prosecutors if they don't like how they operate, and police departments can fire officers if they don't like how they operate. At no point did cops or prosecutors or judges break the law by not enforcing the law, they merely piss off the state that is funding them and now losing additional money due to lack of enforcement and prosecution, and I don't know how the president or executive branch is any different.

US Constitution Section 2 Article 3: "[The President]... shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

The enforcement of the law is not at the president's discretion. That would make Congress powerless. Congress is not powerless.

Your argument reminds me of the clip where the guy who had his license revoked for DUI is surprised when the car starts anyway. Just because a law says a thing, a person still has to action something. If the boss says don't do it, you don't do it. Don't rightly matter if the law says you should.

Can you cite an example? If you're talking about the Biden admin, here is what the AG said:

"I do not think it the best use of the Department’s limited resources to pursue prosecutions of those who are complying with the laws in states that have legalized and are effectively regulating marijuana..."

I.e. exactly what I said is defensible in certain scenarios – and indeed must be defended, potentially in court. It is not POTUS simply saying "I won't do it."

And I don't think Garland's longer, winding way of saying what he said doesn't reduce to "I won't do it".

Don't think so!

This is only true as far as other people are ready to keep the president in check. I only have the surface knowledge of US politics, but from the outside, it seems like the American institutions that were supposed to balance the executive power are all being quite successfully sabotaged.

One of the things that makes it more difficult to enforce those obligations is people's mistaken belief that those obligations do not exist.

So when people say those obligations don't exist, they should be told they are wrong.

The Executive Branch (President, White House) has a responsibility to execute the law as legislated by the Legislative Branch (Congress) and judged by the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) if applicable.

Trump is citing House Resolution 8038[1], Division D, Section 2, subsection A, paragraph 3[2] which states (emphasis mine):

>(3) EXTENSION.—With respect to a foreign adversary controlled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that—

>(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application;

>(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and

>(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension.

In plain English, this means Trump has authority to order a one-time 90-day extension to enforcing the ban if TikTok can present evidence that they are in the process of selling to an American entity.

If TikTok cannot present the evidence or they still do not complete a sale within the 90-day extension, the ban will apply and must be enforced by the President.

As the law in question was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (Biden), the President (Biden and Trump) cannot overrule or otherwise refuse the law with an Executive Order. The President must enforce and act within the powers vested in him by the law.

It is questionable if Trump's claim of not penalizing violators of the law prior to an approved 90-day extension is legal; the law allows no such powers to the President.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038...

[2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038...

There is zero chance he can satisfy A, B, and C tomorrow. Zero.

Then again, reality can be weird sometimes. Never say never until the fat lady sings.

The president has the power to pardon, which could be interpreted in that way.

I'm no legal scholar, but I think offering the pardon up front with the intention of circumventing the law would itself have been a crime up until the recent July supreme court ruling that now appears to make it perfectly legal: absolute immunity for all official acts including pardons.

In fact, there has never[1] been an impeached President in American history.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_impeachment_trial_in_t...

>To impeach an official, the House of Representatives must pass articles of impeachment, which formally accuse the President of misbehavior. Once the House votes to impeach, the Senate must hold a trial to decide if the President should be removed from office.

So no, Trump (nor Clinton nor Johnson for that matter) was/were not impeached. They were all acquitted of the charges presented and even foregoing that the Senate ultimately lacked the political will to impeach them.

They were all tried for impeachment but they were not "impeached". To be impeached means they were found guilty of the charges (article(s) of impeachment) levied. It's like calling someone acquitted of murder a murderer, that's not how this works at all.

"On January 13, Donald Trump became the third President in American history to be impeached and the first President to be impeached twice."

Again, I cite:

>To be impeached, a President or other federal official must have committed one of the violations described by the Constitution as “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But history shows that if a President is to be impeached, the biggest factor may be political will — whether members of a President’s own party are willing to turn against him, and whether enough members of Congress believe that trying to remove the President is worth the risk of losing popular support.

>To impeach an official, the House of Representatives must pass articles of impeachment, which formally accuse the President of misbehavior. Once the House votes to impeach, the Senate must hold a trial to decide if the President should be removed from office.

Further, citing Clause 6 of Article 1 from the Constitution[1] (emphasis mine):

>The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

A President (or former President) is only "impeached" if he is found guilty by the Senate of the charge(s) levied against him by the House. To date that has never occured, all impeachment trials against a President to date have concluded in acquittals.

Factually, there has never been an impeached President in American history.

The use of the term "impeached" to mean a President tried for impeachment is confusing and misleading, perhaps deliberately so given the individuals concerned in all the impeachment trials.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...

"The most recent was the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump."

"What does impeachment mean?

Impeachment means charging a public official with misconduct. Like in the justice system, charges alone do not lead to consequences. Instead, there is a trial, during which the official is convicted or acquitted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigat...

While there have been demands for the impeachment of most presidents, only three — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1999 and Donald Trump in 2019— have actually been impeached. A second impeachment of Donald Trump was adopted, making him the first US President to be impeached twice.

I reiterate that "impeached" means to be convicted of charges levied in (an) article(s) of impeachment.

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1[1] of the Constitution (also cited in your links) states (emphasis mine):

>[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

For there to even be a question of a presidential pardon applying to impeachments that necessitated such a clause, being impeached implies being convicted. The Justice Department considers pardons without convictions as "highly unusual"[2].

I thus reiterate: There has never been an impeached President to date, and the use of the term "impeached" to mean a President merely tried for impeachment is very misleading. Again, you don't call someone merely tried for (let alone acquitted of) murder a murderer.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_Stat...

[2]: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/frequently-asked-questions

What are you even trying to argue or prove? The library of congress states that he was impeached.

https://guides.loc.gov/federal-impeachment/donald-trump

President Donald Trump is the only United States federal official to have been impeached twice.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-impeachment-vote-capitol-si...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/majority-of-house-memb...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55656385

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-poised-impea...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_impeachment_of_Donald_Tr...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_of_Donald_T...

That the term as-used by most people is misleading.

No, it does not.

The extension is discretionary, the liability is not. (And the liability specifically accrues to the operators of the app stores and hosting companies.)

So Biden decided to ban it and Trump decided to unban it. It's all perfectly within the law.

Wrong.

§ 2(G)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) name Bytedance and TikTok [1].

[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17...

There are some paperwork qualifiers that for certain have not been met (the not-yet president almost certainly could not have briefed Congress as president 30 days prior) -- but they seem trivial to satisfy, and it would be pointless to initiate enforcement actions for an event nobody intends to follow through on

[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521... Ctrl+F "(3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION"

Wrong.

That § lets the President designate other entities. That’s why we wrote “any of” at the top—Bytedance, TikTok or any of the things the President may designate.

Of all the shittyness of this bill, least of which giving the president pretty much unchecked power to ban foreign social media, the fact that it named a specific entity is to me just bad form. Law shouldn't ever include "fuck you in particular" even if the effect of the law when applied will be that.

This isn't a power grab. That already happened when the Supreme Court invented out of thin air the idea of presidential immunity. There was no basis for that.

Supreme Court justices are political operatives and the conservative supermajority has gone on a spree of overturning precedent and inventing law on a scale not seen since Marbury v Madison.

“Historical tradition” as a legal doctrine is completely invented. “Major Questions Doctrine” is a massive power grab over the other two branches. Presidential immunity is simply the “unitary executive” doctrine, also completely invented.

We already have a dictator.

“A 1-time extension of not more than 90 days,” § 2(A)(3) [1].

[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-17758/pdf/COMPS-17...

(A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application; (B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and (C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agree- ments to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension

Zero clue how that would play out in the courts, but it wouldn't resolve in anything resembling a timely manner.

But so what? His administration, and he himself, lied about a bunch of stuff during his previous term, and what happened? Nothing. Never tried, never convicted (he was impeached, but so what?)

We do not have a mechanism for dealing with a president or administration that is willing to just lie. Even if the SCOTUS were to determine that the administration did in fact lie about certifying those things, so what? Nothing will happen.

Of course we do. We’ll just fine Apple, Google and Oracle tens of billions of dollars if they don’t cut ties with Bytedance. The law can be patient.

I advocated for this bill. My personal guess is the tech companies bend at the knee and then pay for a new train system in New York or whatever.

More worryingly he stated in his Truth social post that he’s seeking 50% ownership. That doesn’t meet the definition of divestiture in this bill, since China would still effectively steer operations, including content recommendations.

The conditions have not been met, but he will lie and state that to his satisfaction, they have. Nothing will happen to challenge that except some noise from a couple of Democratic senators.

What happens 90 days later is anyone's guess.

It's not a loophole, it's a clear power granted--with strict limits--within the scope of a short bill.

It doesn't. That's Trump being Trump.

> doesn’t “certify” mean more than just “claim”?

Not to my knowledge.

That's not a loophole. It was intentionally designed the way it's been written to be used the way Trump is using it--to give the President leverage and the ability to save face for Beijing.

I'm saying that it is.

That being said, the law is enforceable today and Biden said he won’t enforce it.

Nope, it merely requires that the president certifies that it is in place, and that's something entirely different given who the president will be.

The executive branch hasn’t enforced immigration laws for decades. The H1B system was supposed to be for “temporary” workers, yet executive non-enforcement turned it into a de facto permanent immigration pathway Congress never enacted. Similarly, President Biden refused to collect on a bunch of student loans the law provided should have been repaired. This doesn’t come close to a “power grab” under existing norms.

Someone should sue Trump over this, and we can use that precedent to force the executive to deport the million+ people who are here illegally have already exhausted their judicial process.

Then who is deporting all the people listed in this table [1]?

[1] https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook/2019/table3...

The executive branch tends to have power of discretion in what to enforce and how.

No, it doesn’t. Plenty of lawsuits are around laws not being adequately enforced (and courts forcing such enforcement).

PAFACA was written (I didn’t name it) to command the operators of app stores and hosting companies. They’re the ones accruing liability. The President can ignore the law, but Apple and Google will accrue liabilities until the statute of limitations starts voiding them.

No.

One, our country has a rich tradition of third parties suing to compel the enforcement of laws. Two, we also have a rich tradition of successive presidents enforcing laws their predecessors didn't.

And as for the next president, well, he would just have to tell byte dance what his price is to allow them to operate.

Courts can compel the app stores to de-list. The President doesn’t need to personally enforce every law in the land.

Federally, only today. And federally, the judiciary has its own enforcement powers. (To say nothing of private liability caused by wilful lawbreaking, even if encouraged by the President.)

It’s why Apple and Google, informed by the most-expensive lawyers in the world, have for now de-listed TikTok.

Because this takeaway is wrong.