Remix clone Hacker News

The president is in charge of executing the law. It’s in our system of checks and balances. I’m choosing to speak at an extremely general level, of course, but that is the answer to your question.

▲

diggan 2 months ago | parent [-]

Specifically, I think it's "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Art. II, §3).

Does that mean "If foreign companies don't like our laws, they can pay to have them adjusted"? Seems not very faithful, but I hardly understand that word anymore it feels like.

▲

DiggyJohnson 2 months ago | parent | next [-]

From your second line, the answer is mostly no. Why are you assuming otherwise? Who is paying what to who?

	▲	DiggyJohnson 2 months ago \| parent [-]
		Edit for anyone confused: GP comment changed significantly (for the better).

▲

krapp 2 months ago | parent | prev [-]

It means whatever SCOTUS decides it means, unless and until they decide otherwise.

▲

nottorp 2 months ago | parent [-]

So can Trump legally ignore this SCOTUS or not? :)

▲

ImJamal 2 months ago | parent | next [-]

The president can just not enforce a law.

▲

nottorp 2 months ago | parent [-]

Why are they called laws then? :)

Does the US have a different definition for everything?

	▲	ImJamal 2 months ago \| parent [-]
		The US has 3 different branches. The president is the head of one of the branches called the executive branch, which is the branch that enforces the law. Every president, at least in modern times, selectively chooses when they enforce laws and how severely they enforce the law. The DOJ, department of justice, is part of the executive branch and is involved with such matters. The selective enforcement of laws is a hot button issue and both sides accuse the other of doing it. (Both sides do it all the time). As far as I know, every country has similar issues. I constantly see articles where people are allegedly being prosecuted because they are on the opposite side of the government leadership while also seeing articles claiming they let their own side off.

▲

krapp 2 months ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, SCOTUS also decided nothing a sitting President does in their official capacity while in office can be considered a crime even if it breaks the law so yeah.

	▲	colejohnson66 2 months ago \| parent [-]
		The logic behind such a ruling is nonsensical. Imagine if a president, in his/her official capacity, started murdering political rivals. In other countries, that's considered a dictatorship and should be stopped. But in America, that's completely legal according to SCOTUS. In fact, that was one of the questions asked by the justices! Apparently, committing crimes with absolute immunity is a necessary part of the presidential office. Without such protections, they'd be afraid to do things like extrajudicial drone strikes (Obama) and internment camps (FDR). Oh, wait. I hate to "Poe's Law" this tangent, but most people forget that Hitler's rise to power was also completely legal. Just change the constitution and get the judiciary to side with you, and you can do anything. It's terrifying.