Asklemmy

47109 readers

1889 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

What's an Executive Order? Where is it spelled out what the do and how they're regulated? Can they be vetoed by another arm of government? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sounds like some made-up bullshit to me. Let's throw a flag on this motherfucker and stop the game for a review.

EDIT: Even if it's a thing, how can it have the superpower of closing entire government agencies, opening new ones that supersede national security laws, and nationalizing a voting system that resides in the states?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think there's another issue in that the agencies who receive the executive order are essentially obliged to act as if they are legally binding until they're shot down in court. This means there's a sort of time gap where an executive order can enact an essentially permanent change (e.g. delete a bunch of info, bomb something, etc.) and the court has no way to get it reversed by the time they rule on it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Surely couldn't they do the opposite, ie. refuse to act and wait to be taken to court (if they think they'd win)? Obviously futile if the court has been captured though

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

Potentially with experienced staff members they might try to call its bluff but then it seems like they've also been uprooting experienced personnel, making everyone unstable, replacing them with Trumper patsies etc. which probably minimises this kind of pushback.