The law gives him some power to grant a 90-day reprieve, iff he makes some 'certifications' to congress w.r.t. progress toward compliance.
back
1 comments
That's only before the ban, not after. The ban is already in effect. This is a violation of the law, plain and simple, and the law does not allow for an unbanning after the fact. The 90 extension could have been done before the 19th, but not after.
Simply put, this is law breaking. The President-elect is making promises to break the law day one. This is not surprising.
Look I don’t want to carry any water for him whatsoever, but I think it’s going to be essential to couch criticism in the rule-of-law setting we think should prevail. To that end, the text of the relevant section is:
> With respect to a foreign adversary controlled application, the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that, […]
where “would otherwise apply” is pretty clearly not predicated on the preceding section having come into effect or not.
Thank you for this post.
At least post the rest of the relevant text:
>the President may grant a 1-time extension of not more than 90 days with respect to the date on which this subsection would otherwise apply to such application pursuant to paragraph (2), if the President certifies to Congress that-- (A) a path to executing a qualified divestiture has been identified with respect to such application;
>(B) evidence of significant progress toward executing such qualified divestiture has been produced with respect to such application; and
>(C) there are in place the relevant binding legal agreements to enable execution of such qualified divestiture during the period of such extension.
It seems highly unlikely any of those criteria are being. Trump is not even suggesting it, never mind providing receipts.
Totally, he has to claim to congress those things are true. Claims are … not his weak point.
Both liberal and conservative presidents have made choices about whether or not they will enforce particular laws passed by Congress. This is nothing new. It's just getting a lot more media attention than most instances of this have gotten.
(A very common example: many people in the US can walk into a store and buy marijuana without fear of prosecution because the last several presidents -- from both parties -- have chosen not to enforce that particular federal law.)
Certainly the courts can (and sometimes do) get involved, but the only thing that can force the executive branch to act is for the House to impeach the president, and for the Senate to convict. And the House is not going to impeach Trump over this, or pretty much anything.
I doubt judges would take your side on this interpretation of the law. Wanna put some money on this bet?
He chose the judges.
He'll probably be choosing at least two more as well.
I don’t think it matters.
Scenario one: We get an FDR style leader to fix this stuff after a massive economic collapse and public backlash. (As Biden posited in his farewell address.) This will either lead to court packing or (like last time) the lapdogs on the court will accept their new leashes.
Scenario two: The federal government suffers a partial or complete collapse, and the US ends up being city-states or like the former USSR. (I think this is more likely, and also what Putin wants, assuming he can’t keep Trump under control.)
It’s also possible we’ll continue to have fair elections and the courts will stop abusing their power. This seems the least likely to me.
Under all other scenarios, we’re completely screwed and the current courts will already go along with it.
> This seems the least likely to me
So you think there's a >50% chance that one of your scenarios will happen? Would you like to put some money on that bet?
It's like 2016, all over again.
Its a stretch to consider this law breaking. The president either does or does not have authority here, but the only one breaking the law would be ByteDance.
Biden wasn't considered to have broken the law when courts threw out his plan to forgive school debt. The president tried something, the courts found the order to be invalid as the rule didn't fit the current laws, and everyone moved on about their business without claiming the president broke the law or implying he should have been charged.