|
| ▲ | treetalker 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant State ones. … Sounds like leaving it up to Congress! But then the administration vows to thwart state laws despite the vacuum of no extant preemption, so effectively imposing a type of supposed Executive preemption: > Until such a national standard exists, however, it is imperative that my Administration takes action to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation. So preemption link is relevant, I think; and at any rate, helpful to give background to those not familiar with the concept, which constitutes the field against which this is happening. |
| |
| ▲ | Loughla 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Also why are they small federal government states rights for things but big federal government centralized power for this? It doesn't make sense to me. | | |
| ▲ | josh_p 2 days ago | parent [-] | | When you start thinking of the political elite as out of touch sociopathic aristocrats, it becomes easier to understand their behavior. Their goal is to make money and enrich their own lives at the expense of everyone else. Stephen Miller is just super weird though. Don’t bother trying to figure that guy out. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mullingitover 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think the message between the lines is what's important, and it goes like this: "We in the executive branch have an agreement with the Supreme Court allowing us to bypass congress and enact edicts. We will do this by sending the Justice Department any state law that gets in the way of our donors, sending the layup to our Republican Supreme Court, who will dunk on the States for us and nullify their law." We don't have to go through the motions of pretending we still live in a constitutional republic, it's okay to talk frankly about reality as it exists. |
| |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It goes deeper than that - the Supreme Council will issue non-binding "guidance" on the "shadow docket", so that when/if the fascists/destructionists [0] lose the Presidency, they can go back to being obstructionists weaponizing high-minded ideals in bad faith. As a libertarian, the way I see it is we can disagree politically on what constitutes constructive solutions, but it's time to unite, stop accepting any of the fascists' nonsense, and take back the fucking government - full support for the one remaining mainstream party that at least nominally represents the interests of the United States, while demanding they themselves stop preemptively appeasing the fascists. The Libertarian, Green, or even new parties can step up as the opposition. Pack the courts with judges that believe in America first and foremost, make DC and PR states to mitigate the fascists' abuse of the Senate, and so on. After we've stopped the hemorrhaging, work on fundamental things like adopting ranked pairs voting instead of this plurality trash. [0] I'd be willing to call them something else if they picked an honest name for themselves - they are most certainly not "conservatives" |
|
|
| ▲ | zerocrates 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's right in the text of the EO: they intend to argue that the state laws are preempted by existing federal regulations, and they also direct the creation of new regulations to create preemption if necessary, specifically calling on the FCC and FTC to make new federal rules to preempt disfavored state laws. Separately it talks about going to Congress for new laws but mostly this lays out an attempt to do it with executive action as much as possible, both through preemption and by using funding to try to coerce the states. There's a reasonable argument that nationwide regulation is the more efficient and proper path here but I think it's pretty obvious that the intent is to make toothless "regulation" simply to trigger preemption. You don't have to do much wondering to figure out the level of regulation that David Sacks is looking for. |
|
| ▲ | Ritewut 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is quite literally going to lead to a Supreme Court case about Federal Preemption. Bondi will challenge some CA law, they will lose and appeal until they get to the Supreme Court. I don't have any grace to give people at this point, you have to be willingly turning a blind eye if you do not see where this will end up. |
| |
| ▲ | dmix 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Federal preemption requires federal law (aka laws written by congress). How else would it get to the supreme court? The EO mentions congress passing new law a few times in addition to an executive task force to look into challenging state laws based on constitutional violations or federal statues. That's the only way they'd get in front of a judge. If the plan is for the executive to invent new laws it's not mapped out in this EO | | |
| ▲ | treetalker a day ago | parent [-] | | > Federal preemption requires federal law (aka laws written by congress). How else would it get to the supreme court? 1. No federal preemption currently. (No federal law, therefore no regulation on the matter that should preempt.) 2. State passes and enforces law regarding AI. 3. Trump directs Bondi to challenge the state law on nonsense grounds. 4. In the lawsuit, the state points out that there is no federal preemption; oh yeah, 10th Amendment; and that the administration's argument is nonsense. 5. The judge, say Eileen Cannon, invalidates the state law. 6. Circuit Court reverses. 7. Administration seeks and immediately gets a grant of certiorari — and the preemption matter is in the Supreme Court. > passing new law … only way they'd get it in front of a judge. The EO directs Bondi to investigate whether, and argue that, existing executive regulations (presumably on other topics) preempt state legislation. Regardless, the EO makes it a priority to find and take advantage of some way to challenge and possibly invalidate state laws on the subject. This is a new take on preemption: creation of a state-law vacuum on the subject, through scorched-earth litigation (how Trumpian!), despite an utter absence of federal legislation on the matter. | | |
| ▲ | krapp a day ago | parent [-] | | >2. Trump preemptively threatens to withhold all Federal funding to any state that intends to pass any laws he doesn't like. >2.5 If it's a blue state, maybe the National Guard and ICE suddenly show up in force for the people's own protection. >3. States choose entirely of their own volition to comply in advance. That's probably how this is really going to go. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | sterlind 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| the Task Force can try to challenge state AI laws. they can file whatever lawsuits they want. they will probably lose most of their suits, because there's very little ground for challenging state AI regulations. |
| |
| ▲ | TylerE 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Those suits will be seen by the worst judges the Heritage Foundation could ram through. I would not be nearly so confident of a sane outcome. |
|
