World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
It isn't daft. The Republicans since Reagan have pushed a fringe legal theory called the Unitary Executive Theory. Basically, they want the president to fully control the executive branch and military such that theirs is the only voice that matters for much of the government. Not unlike a king, but partially checked by congress and the courts. They have been taking (illegal) actions to try to get sued, and also have been suing others/other branches of government, to try to get the Supreme Court to hear cases that will support this fringe legal theory so that it becomes the law of the land.
I am not a lawyer, but this is possibly something Trump can legally do since he is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. However, this seems more like an apportionment thing, which is Congress' responsibility. Congress has allocated funds to send military aid to Ukraine. So, even if Trump as Commander in Chief could say "no more weapons to ukraine", it seems doubtful to me that he could (legally) stop weapons shipments currently en route.
But, by the time whatever government office sues the office of the president to get a judge to enjoin them to send the agreed upon weapons that were already apportioned, it will already have hurt Ukraine somewhat. Trump often weaponizes inefficiency. And these sort of illegal acts aren't crimes per se - they're just procedural breaches - the legal remedy is just to reverse the action.
So, probably not legal. But Trump gets to weaponize his administration's incompetence (or feigned incompetence) to at least delay aid. More competent people may support these actions, knowing they're illegal, to try and strengthen the president's role even further.
Wow! Thanks so much for this reply! this is very helpful, thnx a lot
The answer is simpler than that: the "checks and balances" system is a facade created to prevent meaningful progressive policy from passing. There's a reason why Trump can modify a billion laws from day 1, but poor Biden couldn't possibly do anything to codify abortion as a right or prevent the bombing of children in Gaza.
This isn't quite right. Trump didn't really modify laws. That isn't even something he can claim to do since he is the head of the Executive branch, not the Legislative one. He issued executive orders, many of which were illegal, and he had some cronies who enacted some of them anyway - others did not enact some of these. He did rescind many policies, but he can't just make laws go away on his own. There are literally hundreds of court cases currently challenging these executive orders - seeing as how the judiciary is the primary check on the executive branch, that is the system working to check presidential power.
However, I am not a liberal, I am a socialist and do not think this is working well - there are many problems here. The highest levels of the judiciary have been largely captured by far-right judges, many of whom are specifically aligned with Trump's goals and support the unitary executive theory. Also, this method of checking presidential power is extremely slow. For every illegal action Trump's administration takes, a court case has to be crafted, filed, heard, and adjudicated. Every one. And invariably, some will not reach the correct outcome and others will never actually be taken to court - there are just too many.
Basically, the administration is using the fact that they control every branch of government to dismantle or capture core government agencies and to provide cover for various illegal actions - forcing them through if only temporarily for various political and structural ends. A soft coup, basically. So yeah, the fact that something like this is possible is proof of the flaws inherent in this system of government.
That's a lot of words to say that I'm right in practice even if not in principle lmao.
I'm a commie too, BTW. You're way too charitable to the US institutions IMO.