This is simply not true and it's disappointing fear-mongering from Vice (or anyone else who publishes this stuff). The reason you know it's true is because Trump doesn't care about precedent, yet in court case after court case that he or his administration lose they follow the law, even if it is imperfect or later attempted to be argued under a different standing.

The same thing that is true for Donald Trump now was true for pretty much all past presidents. Nothing has meaningfully changed here, yet we did not have these same articles before, nor did we have folks who are so caught up in political fervor that they are happy to go along with any ole' article or reporting that aligns with their current beliefs.

In other words, articles like those are click-bait, and their sole intention or at least their effect is to cause chaos and doubt in the American government.

▲

starshadowx2 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They're talking about the movie Vice from 2018, not Vice the magazine.

	▲	ericmay 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the correction. No change in my opinion or writing though.

▲

edmundsauto 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is demonstrably false. In the case of removing migrants, the court ordered the practice halt and flights get turned around. The court also found evidence of contempt from the federal government due to noncompliance, although another appeals court stopped the contempt investigation.

In the Kiyemba decision, the court identified a pattern of 96 violations across 75 or so cases. Detainees were held despite release orders

In family separation cases, courts have required legal representation reinstated and the government refused to comply.

In the case of NY vs Trump, courts ordered funds to be unfrozen and the administration refused to comply.

▲

krapp 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Peter, the apologist is here.

▲

ImPostingOnHN 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Nothing has meaningfully changed here

Legally? No. That's what OP said:

> The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent.

Now if we're talking reality, the realty is that new precedents were set (president acting like a king) which revealed that there are not effective legal checks on US presidents acting like kings (or else we would not have a president acting like a king).

▲

ericmay 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Sorry, I just don't agree with your assessment. Anyone can just say "well so and so is acting like a king or queen". Trump, as despicable and annoying as he is certainly says a lot, but he's not doing anything from what I can tell that isn't at least poorly argued that he has a right or legal justification for doing. A king or queen needs no such justification, and if one is going through the motions and being forced to respect the law (again there are shades of gray here) than there is no "acting like a king".

But if your focus is on whatever he tweets and therefore he acts like a king, sure. Whatever. I mostly care about what actually happens, actual policy, actual laws and rules, not the theater around it which so many seem to want to indulge in instead of watching reality TV.

▲

thaumasiotes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> A king or queen needs no such justification

They sure spent a lot of time and effort establishing it for something they didn't need.

▲

wizzwizz4 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> A king or queen needs no such justification

Sure they do! Take the king that the US's predecessor governments rebelled against, King George III. He was very much bound to the dictates of Parliament. From his Wikipedia article:

> Meanwhile, George had become exasperated at Grenville's attempts to reduce the King's prerogatives, and tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade William Pitt the Elder to accept the office of prime minister.[45]

Does this sound like something that would be said of an absolute monarch?

▲

ericmay 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Donald Trump is also bound by the dictates of Congress and the courts. If that’s your criteria as to who is “acting like a king” and your reference is yet another king who is constrained by the Congress and Courts, I’m not really sure what point your trying to make here.

He isn’t a king nor does he act like one in the office of the President precisely because he is following the law (generally speaking, I don’t think it’s pertinent to get into specific details else we get into those same details with all presidents) and because he is constrained by Congress.

Your argument just makes “king” George out to be constrained in the way a president is. It’s a bad argument. Don’t let the reality TV fool you.

	▲	ImPostingOnHN an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Your argument that someone can't act like a king unless they're breaking laws is a bad argument (and ignores the fact that this one is doing both). Don't let your reality tv fool you. If that's your criteria as to who is "not acting like a king", I’m not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

▲

ImPostingOnHN an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Sorry, but I just can't agree with your assessment:

> Anyone can just say "well so and so is acting like a king or queen".

This does not mean that anytime someone says it, it is false. If many folks are saying a thing, there is more evidence of it being true than if "anyone" says it. The consensus here seems to be that the current USA president is acting like a king. To alter the consensus, make a successful argument to that effect.

To wit:

- "He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

- "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

- "He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures."

- "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."

- "For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us"

- "For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States"

- "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world"

- "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent"

- "For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

- "For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences"

For someone in the USA, some of this might ring a historical bell.

▲

AnimalMuppet 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What has meaningfully changed here is the rate at which Trump goes charging across lines that result in court cases.

As best as I remember, it has always been the case that executives make decisions that result in court cases. I've never seen it like this, though.

	▲	ericmay 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The rate is different but at the end of the day they still go through the process and when his administration loses cases they just shut up and lose the case. You mostly don't hear about the, I believe hundreds, of cases that the administration has lost. As long as they follow the rule of law (obviously there are at times gray areas and he is expert at identifying and challenging those) I'm not too concerned. Again the media just whips people up into a fervor because it's really good advertising business.