• 0 Posts
  • 7 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 18th, 2023
  • Changetheview@lemmy.worldtoPolitics@lemmy.ml•Why it's impossible for right-wing governments to handle a crisis
    291·
    10 months ago

    Craziest part to me is how successful some right wing groups are at convincing the poor to follow along. Those that quite literally benefit the most from the social programs are willing to vote against their own interests to support the elites.

    How mind boggling is it that rednecks are literally willing to overthrow their beloved country for a NY trust fund baby and reality TV star? Then he goes and helps the rich even more and they love him for it. He pisses all over “law and order” and the military. They don’t care. Just wild.

    I know a lot of their feelings come from fringe topics like immigration/sexuality, but it’s still amazing considering the economic situation they’re facing. The lack of education and critical thinking is evident.

  • Changetheview@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.ml•Biden administration waives 26 federal laws to allow border wall construction in South Texas
    232·
    11 months ago

    I get what you’re saying, but there’s a lot more to separation of powers than this. You might be well aware of all this, but for those that aren’t, here’s a giant wall of text.

    The executive branch’s powers are clearly defined and including acting as the head of the military, the head of foreign affairs, and the executor of the laws congress passes. It is quite restricted by congress in many ways. Of course, the executive branch has emergency powers and limited ways around the laws congress enacts, but that’s not the default and it is very much intended to be restricted by congress.

    The executive branch also has room to make interpretations (create regulations) and to prioritize certain laws when they come into conflict.

    This is what they’re doing here. They have weighed the laws (from congress) they are tasked with enforcing, which includes (a) specific immigration restrictions and (b) a variety of other ones that could impact their ability to execute the immigration restrictions (the “26” laws waived, including water and environmental protections). The DHS (an executive branch agency) has determined that (b) these 26 place an undue burden that prevents them from executing (a) the immigration restrictions, and is therefore temporarily waiving (b).

    You can read the actual order here: https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-22176.pdf

    Notice that it does not say it’s randomly waiving laws of its own accord without a law that it is executing. It is clearly referencing the statues (enacted by congress) that it is acting on. It is identifying that it is failing to execute some laws, but only so it can prioritize another one it has deemed more important for this specific action. It’s also become popular for the executive branch to use emergency decrees to act unilaterally, but these are supposed to be much more limited and a functioning judiciary/congress should hold the executive accountable when this happens.

    What the executive branch is NOT doing here is very important too. It is NOT deciding it doesn’t want to do what congress says. Congress could rewrite the immigration law or any of the other 26 laws to change the way the executive branch executes them, if it feels the executive is implementing them wrong. And the judicial branch could easily weigh in on this if someone affected brings the case to them.

  • Changetheview@lemmy.worldtoPolitics@lemmy.ml•People Are Lying To You About The Trump Indictment
    14·
    1 year ago

    Calling out lies as lies, not mere differences of opinions, is justified and this author does a good job of pointing out two direct lies. I’ve always respected the “you can have your own opinion, but you can’t have your own facts” mentality. That’s basically all he’s saying.

    First, he points out that some coverage indicates the laws used to prosecute Trump are ONLY for Civil War era crimes. Which is just complete bullshit and deserves to be called out. That would be like saying the financial regulatory overhauls that came from 2008 are ONLY applicable to the 2008 crisis. Laws may be enacted for a specific purposes, but they can and should be applied to future wrongs.

    Second, he points out that some coverage indicates there is a legal requirement for specific monetary connections. But that just isn’t true under the statutes used for the charges, and the report he’s pointing to literally cites an entirely unrelated statute and precedent. Once again, this is not a difference of interpretation. It is an intentional misleading of their audience and refusal to acknowledge the truth. It deserves to be called out for what it is.

    Critical thinking is being lost. Pieces like this that call out bold-faced lies are valuable and I wish more journalists (and debate moderators) would be willing to do so with the same brutality as this piece.