I would argue it should be illegal for the police, media, and others who have significant roles in society to lie and that they should be criminally prosecuted.
The only tragedy that I see is that most people seem to scream something in relation to free speech when the idea of criminally prosecuting folks for lying is mentioned. I prefer truthful discourse with serious consequences over whatever most call “free speech”.
This would apply only to the 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General.
Currently those laws (which are technically called “rules”) are interpreted by the agencies themselves, with the reasoning being that the subject matter expertise of those agencies is the most important factor in deciding any dispute relating to any rule. The laws and judicial process works differently when it comes to agencies under the executive branch.
Having an external governing individual is better than self-governance in most systems, so this seems sensible given that those agencies have a history of interpreting rules in ways that are self-interested and clearly not to the spirit of the rules, which likely resulted in this Executive Order.
> Currently those laws (which are technically called “rules”) are interpreted by the agencies themselves, with the reasoning being that the subject matter expertise of those agencies is most important factor in deciding any rule. The laws and judicial process works differently when it comes to agencies under the executive branch.
This was never true: it was simply the case that (under the principle of Chevron deference) that in cases of ambiguity, courts would defer to the agencies themselves. The courts still reserved the right to interpret the law, since that is literally their job.
Moreover, it's even less true since last year with the Loper Bright case, which overturned Chevron deference, and courts no longer defer to the agencies.
> Having an external governing individual is better than self-governance in most systems.
I don't know what this means. Who is an "external governing individual"? If you mean the president, I would say that he is (a) not external to the executive branch, (b) not entitled to decide matters of law by the Constitution, and (c) not qualified to decide matters of law by education and training.
The reason Chevron likely compelled the Executive Order, at least in part, is because the Trump administration likely views the ability for agencies to self-resolve ambiguities in their own rules as bad and potentially obstructive to their agenda.
For example, an agency might self-resolve an ambiguous rule to say they can’t be fired or similar, which would directly conflict with what the Trump administration wants to do.
While it was overturned, perhaps there are fears of other loopholes that they see that can accomplish this beyond simple case law.
I haven't understood this angle of sympathizers for Unitary Executive.
Even from a purely strategic play, and you sitting here saying, "it makes sense why the Executive branch would make their life even easier to rule with an even more ironed fist", does it ever give you pause to what you're saying? Lack of consolidation to power in the Executive is what ensures checks and balances.
This isn't a development you should be gunning for - in ANY administration, because even if you're pro-47, you're not going to like the precedent this creates for the power of the next admin.
Republicans and the Supreme Court will suddenly take a much greater interest in checks-and-balances when there is a different party in the White House... if that ever happens again.
Fascinating that Trump doesn’t even come close to breaking the record.
Does anyone know what the majority of the Executive Orders related to for the high-volume presidents and if those Executive Orders were eventually reversed or not? It’s a dense question though would be neat to know.
Most people, based on my experience, would rather support Elon Musk than support a strategy recommended by an individual who believes that the MSM should be trusted.
Not to mention that most of your sources to support your points are from far left MSM sources.
Your reasoning is exactly why there is so much support for Elon Musk. You probably made more Elon Musk fans just by your post.
Most people seem to believe the government is broken and MSM is a huge reason for this.
> Most people seem to believe the government is broken and MSM is a huge reason for this.
Is it because Fox News, the most influential channel of the so-called MSM, constantly repeats conservative talking points about the alleged inefficiencies of the government and downplaying the government's important work in protecting citizens?
Americans will soon get to experience what a real broken government is like, and I hope it provides them an education.
There should be a law in place whereby if you a prove a company was engaged in profitable advertising or activities and stopped doing those activities in response to political stances the company can be prosecuted.
Not sure where this would fit into the law though something like this would certainly curtail cancel culture like activity.
Could a be a “facts and circumstances” type of legislation similar to the IRS. Many IRS rules go back to the “facts and circumstances” of a particular case to evaluate all the nuances relating to it.
I'm still not clear why you think this would be a good idea. Obviously you have opinions on what is "legitimate" in these situations. Can you explain more about this and how it wouldn't be a first ammendment violation to create such a law?
What "facts and circumstances" are we interested in? Your original post mentioned ending business relationships due to political stances. Did you mean the political stance of the advertisers, the platform hosting ads, some third party or parties, a combination of the above, or something I've missed?
It was profitable to do so a year ago, it was simply dangerous politically. Now given Trump is in office and aligned with Musk, it’s politically beneficial.
If an activity is profitable but the government can prosecute you for taking place in that activity, there in no correlation. That’s the point.
Advertising was dangerous because there was a perception that the previous US government would politically prosecute anyone who opposed them. Companies advertising on X, and hence supporting opposition such as Musk, would fall into this category.
I would argue it should be illegal for the police, media, and others who have significant roles in society to lie and that they should be criminally prosecuted.
The only tragedy that I see is that most people seem to scream something in relation to free speech when the idea of criminally prosecuting folks for lying is mentioned. I prefer truthful discourse with serious consequences over whatever most call “free speech”.