All legal authority vested in the President is enabled by Congress except for the power of pardon. The President is Commander in Chief but Congress authorizes and funds the military, for instance. Anything the president does therefore falls under that "congress shall make no law" line because if the president's doing it, that means that congress authorized it via legislation at some point.
And if Congress is silent on the matter?
Then he doesn't have the authority to do it.
In any case it doesn't matter. First Amendment applies to every government entity. School boards have lost a lot of FA cases for example..
This is not as clear cut as you think it is, is all I'm saying. Schools receiving federal funding is different from the Executive issuing orders.
Executive orders stem from the executive authority which is derived from determining how to execute the laws. Such all authority from executive orders is derived from legislative authority either through action or delegation. Since the legislature cannot violate "one" neither can any government agency violate "one". While it could be the case that Judicalial and Executive could violate "one" it would only be insomuch in explicit powers granted to them which are in no relation to the laws enacted by congress or any delegated powers
But your law review doesn't article doesn't really make that argument that there is an actual group of people who believe this. Simply that minority positions have been writing in ways that might potentially maybe challenge the status quo that is "no; EOs cannot".
Not all settled law is the result of SCOTUS decisions. And sure, that could change with a SCOTUS decision but it would be no different than any other time SCOTUS has reversed itself.
If it's a Constitutional question SCOTUS is pretty much the final authority, and when ruling they will look to precedent first if it exists - there isn't really any on this specific question which is why I think it's an interesting question without a clear cut answer. I'd be curious to see how a Trump admin would defend an EO that directly implicated freedom of the press, and how SCOTUS would respond - if they would eschew the First Amendment argument all together in favor of ruling under Due Process or simply defining more clearly the bounds of Constitutionally-derived Executive Power, which is kind of tricky, because the Constitution can be vague!
I, DONALD Trump, do solemnly swear that Cnn, NBC, and MSNBC, and the Internet,BBC are FakeNews and shall as such and to the fullest extent of the perogative and influence of the President in this time must be given an executive and solemn reason for the unity of this Great Nation. This action/reason/executive Shall consist of Three(4) Parts and shall endure for 30 days (9 weeks)
a) CNN, nbc, MSNBC and BBC are banned from BroadCasting in the Continental USA CNN shall furnish the President with $50 dollars
iii) The failing MSNBC shall apologize to the President for being mean
FOWR) This executive action is not an act of congress or government because I'm the President not the Government. I win!
Nothing, nothing made me as uncomfortable during the campaign - and nothing makes me as uncomfortable with respect to the administration now - as the press censorship stuff. As a candidate or as President, it's just not something you should ever talk about or suggest. If you feel a certain outlet has defamed you by publishing a false statement of fact, go ahead and sue. But as a public figure - big league/bigly - you need to understand how high the bar is. And you need to turn the other cheek.
Representing that you will change - or even would like to change - those types of laws in order to prevent reporting that you find to be negative or in poor taste or one-sided or even completely biased is unacceptable and terrifying and should not be tolerated. I basically hate the press, and sure, they can be irresponsible and agenda-driven, but I wouldn't even joke about it if I were a public figure. You just don't do it. It evokes the worst moments in world history in ways that little else does. Go on with your life.
Executive orders can either be based in a legislative power (that is, in the sense of Congress passes a law within their powers and the executive then enforces it) or an independent executive power (the stuff the President can do on their own; primarily C-in-C stuff, foreign policy). Regulating speech is not an enumerated power or obligation of the executive.
But not cable news, so Fox News is fine of course.
Also surely at this point someone has told him that's not how this shit works and there aren't licenses. So tripling down on it is what, Trump deliberately trying propagandize with an easy goal of "revoke the licenses"? Or is he just waving away people explaining it and refusing to listen?
0
Options
Mx. QuillI now prefer "Myr. Quill", actually...{They/Them}Registered Userregular
He's an idiot, had it pointed out by being told news networks don't have licenses, and is insisting they exist since his base doesn't know that and because he can never admit to being proven wrong.
But not cable news, so Fox News is fine of course.
Also surely at this point someone has told him that's not how this shit works and there aren't licenses. So tripling down on it is what, Trump deliberately trying propagandize with an easy goal of "revoke the licenses"? Or is he just waving away people explaining it and refusing to listen?
In the land of absolutist free speech, truth is just a matter of what a huckster can convince their audience of.
There may not be licenses, but if Trump convinces his audience that there totally are licenses, I'm sure he could claim to have revoked them while imposing whatever measure of censorship.
With Love and Courage
+17
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
You'd have to go after every single affiliate as those are the ones with licenses.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
He's an idiot, had it pointed out by being told news networks don't have licenses, and is insisting they exist since his base doesn't know that and because he can never admit to being proven wrong.
Fuckin'.
Trumps is stupid, but sometimes it's difficult to tell well the idiocy ends and the salesmanship begins. Selling snake oil is more often a matter of fraud rather than intelligence.
The base is naïve enough to buy it at face value, the base's allies mostly aren't but also aren't forward-thinking enough to care that Trump is proposing that sort of censorship.
And there's plenty of censorship that can be imposed, I'm sure, without treading upon the most narrow & literal interpretation of the First Amendment. If SCOTUS were forced to rule on such a matter contemporaneously, with each member of that body being interested in partisanship first & law second, the current seat count rather favors whatever Trump would like to do.
With Love and Courage
+3
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I can’t even read Trump’s tweets anymore. They are so goddamned stupid they give me an immediate headache. The TV licenses ones are by far the dumbest to date. I just can’t.
Nothing too severe but it’s so rare to hear anything anti-trump on conservative media that is not Glenn Beck.
That's still surprising as fuck. Like Limbaugh is a staunch "the GOP MUST SURVIVE!" if he's giving Trump brushback? Yikes. Could be nothing, could be he folds immediately when the trumpistas slam him, could be the canary in the coal mine as it were.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Nothing too severe but it’s so rare to hear anything anti-trump on conservative media that is not Glenn Beck.
That's still surprising as fuck. Like Limbaugh is a staunch "the GOP MUST SURVIVE!" if he's giving Trump brushback? Yikes. Could be nothing, could be he folds immediately when the trumpistas slam him, could be the canary in the coal mine as it were.
Rush exists as he is because of the first amendment. It's probably the only thing he respects. Any threat to it is a threat to his livlehood
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
The fact that there isn't some Permission To Broadcast News License doesn't change the fact that his tweeting about them will have convinced his supporters that there is, and that the president can allow or revoke them.
The last couple days of that were probably enough to convince a quarter of the electorate that the president not only can, but must start shutting down journalists critical of the White House.
(Because, y'know, a large chunk of the electorate automatically believing anything the man says wasn't distressing enough when he was only claiming a popular vote victory or both-siiiidesing race riots..)
I don't often comment on political threads, as the discussion usually goes way over my head, but I do want to chime in today to say this:
Trump's opponents (hell, even those who would be his allies) need to harp on one particular point and hammer on it hard: His speech concerning this matter constitutes a violation of the oath he took as president. He needs to be reminded of his oath, news networks need to replay the video of him swearing that oath, and continue to hammer him over the head, over and over again, that the words that he has typed demonstrate an unwillingness to uphold that oath.
If a man cannot uphold his oath of office then he must step down, or be removed.
3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
+21
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I don't often comment on political threads, as the discussion usually goes way over my head, but I do want to chime in today to say this:
Trump's opponents (hell, even those who would be his allies) need to harp on one particular point and hammer on it hard: His speech concerning this matter constitutes a violation of the oath he took as president. He needs to be reminded of his oath, news networks need to replay the video of him swearing that oath, and continue to hammer him over the head, over and over again, that the words that he has typed demonstrate an unwillingness to uphold that oath.
If a man cannot uphold his oath of office then he must step down, or be removed.
I don't often comment on political threads, as the discussion usually goes way over my head, but I do want to chime in today to say this:
Trump's opponents (hell, even those who would be his allies) need to harp on one particular point and hammer on it hard: His speech concerning this matter constitutes a violation of the oath he took as president. He needs to be reminded of his oath, news networks need to replay the video of him swearing that oath, and continue to hammer him over the head, over and over again, that the words that he has typed demonstrate an unwillingness to uphold that oath.
If a man cannot uphold his oath of office then he must step down, or be removed.
As I grow accustomed to Twitter as a legitimate political communication medium, it feels more and more like these sort of statements that don't @ trump are, in a way, more cowardly than saying nothing at all.
He's right there, standing across the room, and you're whispering by the punch bowl about what you'd like to say to him, but clearly lack the nerve to do so.
Then again, Trump exists almost continuously on Twitter. So saying something there could very well be the best way to ensure he reads it. Especially if it gets picked up by the media. Because this is the stupid fucking world we live in now.
I don't often comment on political threads, as the discussion usually goes way over my head, but I do want to chime in today to say this:
Trump's opponents (hell, even those who would be his allies) need to harp on one particular point and hammer on it hard: His speech concerning this matter constitutes a violation of the oath he took as president. He needs to be reminded of his oath, news networks need to replay the video of him swearing that oath, and continue to hammer him over the head, over and over again, that the words that he has typed demonstrate an unwillingness to uphold that oath.
If a man cannot uphold his oath of office then he must step down, or be removed.
As I grow accustomed to Twitter as a legitimate political communication medium, it feels more and more like these sort of statements that don't @ trump are, in a way, more cowardly than saying nothing at all.
He's right there, standing across the room, and you're whisoering by the punch bowl about what you'd like to say to him, but clearly lack the nerve to do so.
Especially from someone in his position, who would have little difficulty raising that exact same question on the floor of the Senate chamber.
Watching Velshi and Ruhle this morning on MSNBC they showed a Trump tweet from 2013 where he praised Roger Ailes and Fox News reporters for standing up to a White House that was trying to bully them and prevent free speech.
So once again, there literally is a tweet for everything.
All legal authority vested in the President is enabled by Congress except for the power of pardon. The President is Commander in Chief but Congress authorizes and funds the military, for instance. Anything the president does therefore falls under that "congress shall make no law" line because if the president's doing it, that means that congress authorized it via legislation at some point.
And if Congress is silent on the matter?
Then he doesn't have the authority to do it.
In any case it doesn't matter. First Amendment applies to every government entity. School boards have lost a lot of FA cases for example..
This is not as clear cut as you think it is, is all I'm saying. Schools receiving federal funding is different from the Executive issuing orders.
Executive orders stem from the executive authority which is derived from determining how to execute the laws. Such all authority from executive orders is derived from legislative authority either through action or delegation. Since the legislature cannot violate "one" neither can any government agency violate "one". While it could be the case that Judicalial and Executive could violate "one" it would only be insomuch in explicit powers granted to them which are in no relation to the laws enacted by congress or any delegated powers
But your law review doesn't article doesn't really make that argument that there is an actual group of people who believe this. Simply that minority positions have been writing in ways that might potentially maybe challenge the status quo that is "no; EOs cannot".
Not all settled law is the result of SCOTUS decisions. And sure, that could change with a SCOTUS decision but it would be no different than any other time SCOTUS has reversed itself.
If it's a Constitutional question SCOTUS is pretty much the final authority, and when ruling they will look to precedent first if it exists - there isn't really any on this specific question which is why I think it's an interesting question without a clear cut answer. I'd be curious to see how a Trump admin would defend an EO that directly implicated freedom of the press, and how SCOTUS would respond - if they would eschew the First Amendment argument all together in favor of ruling under Due Process or simply defining more clearly the bounds of Constitutionally-derived Executive Power, which is kind of tricky, because the Constitution can be vague!
The SCOTUS would almost certainly not get involved. It would go through a federal district court, likely get appealed to a circuit court, but get no further. I'll admit I haven't read your law review article quoted. However, almost all of the EOs issued by the president direct his executive agencies to do some action, in this hypothetical it would be to violate an entity's first amendment rights. However, all of these executive agencies authority stem from an act of Congress via a law creating an administrative agency, and tasking the executive to govern the agency. The argument is made that yes the President can restrict free speech, but only using the explicit powers granted to him by Article II of the Constitution, which are by and large pretty damn limited (mostly commander in chief, power of the pardon, and appointment of vacancies). Almost all of the President's current level of power has been pure delegation by Congress, which still counts as an 'act of Congress'.
Nothing too severe but it’s so rare to hear anything anti-trump on conservative media that is not Glenn Beck.
That's still surprising as fuck. Like Limbaugh is a staunch "the GOP MUST SURVIVE!" if he's giving Trump brushback? Yikes. Could be nothing, could be he folds immediately when the trumpistas slam him, could be the canary in the coal mine as it were.
Rush exists as he is because of the first amendment. It's probably the only thing he respects. Any threat to it is a threat to his livlehood
Yeah, it's important to remember that Rush cares about money, not the Republican party. We've seen this numerous times as he's gone head to head with them and forced them to back down because he says the things he knows get him ratings, regardless of what the party wants to do.
This is the basic dynamic of the interaction between the GOP and the right-wing media. Most of them are grifters, just like Trump. They believe various parts of the platform to one extent or another but at the end of the day they want the money more. It's one of the reasons the whole thing has gotten so insane. They push what sells, regardless of where it takes the party or the country.
This shit makes Rush nervous because he cares more about his show then about Trump's ego or image.
I don't often comment on political threads, as the discussion usually goes way over my head, but I do want to chime in today to say this:
Trump's opponents (hell, even those who would be his allies) need to harp on one particular point and hammer on it hard: His speech concerning this matter constitutes a violation of the oath he took as president. He needs to be reminded of his oath, news networks need to replay the video of him swearing that oath, and continue to hammer him over the head, over and over again, that the words that he has typed demonstrate an unwillingness to uphold that oath.
If a man cannot uphold his oath of office then he must step down, or be removed.
As I grow accustomed to Twitter as a legitimate political communication medium, it feels more and more like these sort of statements that don't @ trump are, in a way, more cowardly than saying nothing at all.
He's right there, standing across the room, and you're whispering by the punch bowl about what you'd like to say to him, but clearly lack the nerve to do so.
Yup. It's a performance for the media. But he knows the voters don't really care about this shit so he's not gonna anger Trump or his supporters.
+3
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited October 2017
Trevor Trimm, Executive Director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, has a twitter thread noting that there is a court decision addressing the limits that the government (and its officials) have in terms of its speech with respect to whether that speech would be reasonably inferred to count as censorship (through the threat of state sanction, even if implicit). You can find the court case in question here (link is to a word document of the case, which is odd, but is coming from the Courts.gov own site so I guess that's just how they handle direct links to the full decision). Relevant bits, including other case law being referenced:
A government entity, including therefore the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, is entitled to say what it wants to say—but only within limits. It is not permitted to employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens. “[A] government’s ability to express itself is [not] without restriction. … [T]he Free Speech Clause itself may constrain the government’s speech.” Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., supra, 135 S. Ct. at 2246; see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, supra, 515 U.S. at 833–34.
That’s not true, and while he has a First Amendment right to express his views about Backpage, a public official who tries to shut down an avenue of expression of ideas and opinions through “actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction” is violating the First Amendment. American Family Association, Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco, 277 F.3d 1114, 1125 (9th Cir. 2002).
“the fact that a public-official defendant lacks direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority over a plaintiff, or a third party that is publishing or otherwise disseminating the plaintiff’s message, is not necessarily dispositive … . What matters is the distinction between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce. A public-official defendant who threatens to employ coercive state power to stifle protected speech violates a plaintiff’s First Amendment rights, regardless of whether the threatened punishment comes in the form of the use (or, misuse) of the defendant’s direct regulatory or decisionmaking authority over the plaintiff, or in some less-direct form.” Notice that such a threat is actionable and thus can be enjoined even if it turns out to be empty—the victim ignores it, and the threatener folds his tent. But the victims in this case yielded to the threat.
The key bits to the argument from these cases appear to be: government officials (which in this case, Trump's twitter qualifies as it's on record by the White House that the account qualifies as official statements) are constrained in their speech so as to not shut down avenues of expression or opinions through threat of sanction, even if that threat is implicit, even if the threat is an empty threat, the victim ignores it, or they later recant the threat/back down.
Later in the twitter thread another lawyer chimes in with the suggestion that in this particular case, the threat of sanction is more concrete in that it could reasonably be argued the threat in this case would be to raise FCC sanctions against the networks (even if nonsensical or empty).
I don't often comment on political threads, as the discussion usually goes way over my head, but I do want to chime in today to say this:
Trump's opponents (hell, even those who would be his allies) need to harp on one particular point and hammer on it hard: His speech concerning this matter constitutes a violation of the oath he took as president. He needs to be reminded of his oath, news networks need to replay the video of him swearing that oath, and continue to hammer him over the head, over and over again, that the words that he has typed demonstrate an unwillingness to uphold that oath.
If a man cannot uphold his oath of office then he must step down, or be removed.
As I grow accustomed to Twitter as a legitimate political communication medium, it feels more and more like these sort of statements that don't @ trump are, in a way, more cowardly than saying nothing at all.
He's right there, standing across the room, and you're whispering by the punch bowl about what you'd like to say to him, but clearly lack the nerve to do so.
He's a Senator but he won't use that power. Sasse mostly speaks out against Trump because he says the quiet things about conservatism loud and Sasse is a hardcore conservative
I don't often comment on political threads, as the discussion usually goes way over my head, but I do want to chime in today to say this:
Trump's opponents (hell, even those who would be his allies) need to harp on one particular point and hammer on it hard: His speech concerning this matter constitutes a violation of the oath he took as president. He needs to be reminded of his oath, news networks need to replay the video of him swearing that oath, and continue to hammer him over the head, over and over again, that the words that he has typed demonstrate an unwillingness to uphold that oath.
If a man cannot uphold his oath of office then he must step down, or be removed.
As I grow accustomed to Twitter as a legitimate political communication medium, it feels more and more like these sort of statements that don't @ trump are, in a way, more cowardly than saying nothing at all.
He's right there, standing across the room, and you're whispering by the punch bowl about what you'd like to say to him, but clearly lack the nerve to do so.
He's a Senator but he won't use that power. Sasse mostly speaks out against Trump because he says the quiet things about conservatism loud and Sasse is a hardcore conservative
I don't see that as projection? It's just simply if you allow the executive this power now it will not always be an executive you agree with?
Yeah, calling out Elizabeth Warren specifically is a bit dirty as it’s implying she would do that, but it’s an argument on the whole for strengthening constitutional protections and procedural norms, which is a vast improvement from the overall direction the nation is going.
I don't see that as projection? It's just simply if you allow the executive this power now it will not always be an executive you agree with?
Well, it's that Elizabeth Warren would talk about censoring Fox News. Just because the Republican president is talking about it doesn't mean the Democrats are ever going to.
I don't see that as projection? It's just simply if you allow the executive this power now it will not always be an executive you agree with?
Yeah, calling out Elizabeth Warren specifically is a bit dirty as it’s implying she would do that, but it’s an argument on the whole for strengthening constitutional protections and procedural norms, which is a vast improvement from the overall direction the nation is going.
I think it's a good thought exercise for conservatives, even if Warren herself wouldn't actually do it. Because they are *so* scared of those young liberals on college campuses trying to shut down the extreme right. They need to consider, that one day, in about 40 years, one of those college student liberals will be president.
Posts
If it's a Constitutional question SCOTUS is pretty much the final authority, and when ruling they will look to precedent first if it exists - there isn't really any on this specific question which is why I think it's an interesting question without a clear cut answer. I'd be curious to see how a Trump admin would defend an EO that directly implicated freedom of the press, and how SCOTUS would respond - if they would eschew the First Amendment argument all together in favor of ruling under Due Process or simply defining more clearly the bounds of Constitutionally-derived Executive Power, which is kind of tricky, because the Constitution can be vague!
I, DONALD Trump, do solemnly swear that Cnn, NBC, and MSNBC, and the Internet,BBC are FakeNews and shall as such and to the fullest extent of the perogative and influence of the President in this time must be given an executive and solemn reason for the unity of this Great Nation. This action/reason/executive Shall consist of Three(4) Parts and shall endure for 30 days (9 weeks)
a) CNN, nbc, MSNBC and BBC are banned from BroadCasting in the Continental USA
iii) The failing MSNBC shall apologize to the President for being mean
FOWR) This executive action is not an act of congress or government because I'm the President not the Government. I win!
He doubled down on the earlier comments. Wonder if he'll go back to the campaign well of wanting to make it easier to sue someone for slander
It won't happen, partially because such a change would be see Trump getting annhiliated in court on a regular basis.
Representing that you will change - or even would like to change - those types of laws in order to prevent reporting that you find to be negative or in poor taste or one-sided or even completely biased is unacceptable and terrifying and should not be tolerated. I basically hate the press, and sure, they can be irresponsible and agenda-driven, but I wouldn't even joke about it if I were a public figure. You just don't do it. It evokes the worst moments in world history in ways that little else does. Go on with your life.
He might actually remember to force the FCC to do something.
Fucking
Licenses
You idiot
Also surely at this point someone has told him that's not how this shit works and there aren't licenses. So tripling down on it is what, Trump deliberately trying propagandize with an easy goal of "revoke the licenses"? Or is he just waving away people explaining it and refusing to listen?
Fuckin'.
In the land of absolutist free speech, truth is just a matter of what a huckster can convince their audience of.
There may not be licenses, but if Trump convinces his audience that there totally are licenses, I'm sure he could claim to have revoked them while imposing whatever measure of censorship.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
This whole thing just sounds like the kind of thing that his base loves and that he has no intention of following up on.
Trumps is stupid, but sometimes it's difficult to tell well the idiocy ends and the salesmanship begins. Selling snake oil is more often a matter of fraud rather than intelligence.
The base is naïve enough to buy it at face value, the base's allies mostly aren't but also aren't forward-thinking enough to care that Trump is proposing that sort of censorship.
And there's plenty of censorship that can be imposed, I'm sure, without treading upon the most narrow & literal interpretation of the First Amendment. If SCOTUS were forced to rule on such a matter contemporaneously, with each member of that body being interested in partisanship first & law second, the current seat count rather favors whatever Trump would like to do.
That doesn't encompass Fox, obviously. But it also doesn't include CNN or MSNBC.
Like, does he not get that?
No. Of course he doesn't. Why would he.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
http://ir.net/news/politics/127745/watch-gop-campaign-video-twitter-just-banned-inflammatory/
By banning GOP campaign ads.
Isn't that just that they won't take money to show them AS ads? They're still going to get posted.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
http://www.newsweek.com/rush-limbaugh-suggests-trump-acting-dictator-and-making-him-nervous-682908
Nothing too severe but it’s so rare to hear anything anti-trump on conservative media that is not Glenn Beck.
Babysteps, I suppose. Also there's probably a difference with regards to liability if they've directly received money to promulgate it
That's still surprising as fuck. Like Limbaugh is a staunch "the GOP MUST SURVIVE!" if he's giving Trump brushback? Yikes. Could be nothing, could be he folds immediately when the trumpistas slam him, could be the canary in the coal mine as it were.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Rush exists as he is because of the first amendment. It's probably the only thing he respects. Any threat to it is a threat to his livlehood
The fact that there isn't some Permission To Broadcast News License doesn't change the fact that his tweeting about them will have convinced his supporters that there is, and that the president can allow or revoke them.
The last couple days of that were probably enough to convince a quarter of the electorate that the president not only can, but must start shutting down journalists critical of the White House.
(Because, y'know, a large chunk of the electorate automatically believing anything the man says wasn't distressing enough when he was only claiming a popular vote victory or both-siiiidesing race riots..)
Trump's opponents (hell, even those who would be his allies) need to harp on one particular point and hammer on it hard: His speech concerning this matter constitutes a violation of the oath he took as president. He needs to be reminded of his oath, news networks need to replay the video of him swearing that oath, and continue to hammer him over the head, over and over again, that the words that he has typed demonstrate an unwillingness to uphold that oath.
If a man cannot uphold his oath of office then he must step down, or be removed.
Ben Sasse (R-NE) agrees, apparently
As I grow accustomed to Twitter as a legitimate political communication medium, it feels more and more like these sort of statements that don't @ trump are, in a way, more cowardly than saying nothing at all.
He's right there, standing across the room, and you're whispering by the punch bowl about what you'd like to say to him, but clearly lack the nerve to do so.
Especially from someone in his position, who would have little difficulty raising that exact same question on the floor of the Senate chamber.
So once again, there literally is a tweet for everything.
The SCOTUS would almost certainly not get involved. It would go through a federal district court, likely get appealed to a circuit court, but get no further. I'll admit I haven't read your law review article quoted. However, almost all of the EOs issued by the president direct his executive agencies to do some action, in this hypothetical it would be to violate an entity's first amendment rights. However, all of these executive agencies authority stem from an act of Congress via a law creating an administrative agency, and tasking the executive to govern the agency. The argument is made that yes the President can restrict free speech, but only using the explicit powers granted to him by Article II of the Constitution, which are by and large pretty damn limited (mostly commander in chief, power of the pardon, and appointment of vacancies). Almost all of the President's current level of power has been pure delegation by Congress, which still counts as an 'act of Congress'.
Yeah, it's important to remember that Rush cares about money, not the Republican party. We've seen this numerous times as he's gone head to head with them and forced them to back down because he says the things he knows get him ratings, regardless of what the party wants to do.
This is the basic dynamic of the interaction between the GOP and the right-wing media. Most of them are grifters, just like Trump. They believe various parts of the platform to one extent or another but at the end of the day they want the money more. It's one of the reasons the whole thing has gotten so insane. They push what sells, regardless of where it takes the party or the country.
This shit makes Rush nervous because he cares more about his show then about Trump's ego or image.
Yup. It's a performance for the media. But he knows the voters don't really care about this shit so he's not gonna anger Trump or his supporters.
The key bits to the argument from these cases appear to be: government officials (which in this case, Trump's twitter qualifies as it's on record by the White House that the account qualifies as official statements) are constrained in their speech so as to not shut down avenues of expression or opinions through threat of sanction, even if that threat is implicit, even if the threat is an empty threat, the victim ignores it, or they later recant the threat/back down.
Later in the twitter thread another lawyer chimes in with the suggestion that in this particular case, the threat of sanction is more concrete in that it could reasonably be argued the threat in this case would be to raise FCC sanctions against the networks (even if nonsensical or empty).
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
He's a Senator but he won't use that power. Sasse mostly speaks out against Trump because he says the quiet things about conservatism loud and Sasse is a hardcore conservative
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
An example of Sasse's hardcore conservative b.s.
The projection, it burrrrnnnnsss usssssss!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, calling out Elizabeth Warren specifically is a bit dirty as it’s implying she would do that, but it’s an argument on the whole for strengthening constitutional protections and procedural norms, which is a vast improvement from the overall direction the nation is going.
Well, it's that Elizabeth Warren would talk about censoring Fox News. Just because the Republican president is talking about it doesn't mean the Democrats are ever going to.
I think it's a good thought exercise for conservatives, even if Warren herself wouldn't actually do it. Because they are *so* scared of those young liberals on college campuses trying to shut down the extreme right. They need to consider, that one day, in about 40 years, one of those college student liberals will be president.