Remix clone Hacker News

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 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

▲

krapp 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

nottorp 13 hours ago | parent [-]

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

▲

ImJamal 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The president can just not enforce a law.

	▲	nottorp 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why are they called laws then? :) Does the US have a different definition for everything?

▲

krapp 13 hours 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 13 hours 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.