5 ms·

What does this have to do with executive orders?

• alwa 9mo ago
  I imagine it’s a nod to the way the stated goal would normally be pursued, but in this case is not. It sounds like a good idea to establish a uniform national policy! And the federal government can do that (although only for the very specific purposes spelled out in the Constitution). The right way to do that is to pass a law through both houses of Congress, and the president to sign it into law. Maybe the law even specifies a broad framework and authorizes the executive branch to dial in the specific details (although the court seems to be souring on that kind of thing too). The god-king proclaiming a brand new framework governing a major new sector of the economy To Be So is.. not the normal way
• peterlk 9mo ago
  The link is highly relevant to the executive order because this executive order attempts to place limitations on what laws US states can create.
  • lesuorac 9mo ago
    EOs aren't law though. They're guidance for the rest of the executive branch on how to execute the laws written by congress. The Legislative branch (Congress) not the Executive branch (White House) can preempt states.
    • twisteriffic 9mo ago
      I don't know if you've heard, but norms don't matter anymore.
      • lesuorac 9mo ago
        Can you guys just read stuff before talking? > The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to create an “AI Litigation Task Force” within 30 days whose "sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws" that clash with the Trump administration's vision for light-touch regulation. The EO isn't about Federal Preemption. Trump's not creating a law to preempt states. So a question about how Federal Preemption is relevant is on point.
        • mullingitover 9mo ago
          I think the message between the lines is what's important, and it goes like this: "We in the executive branch have an agreement with the Supreme Court allowing us to bypass congress and enact edicts. We will do this by sending the Justice Department any state law that gets in the way of our donors, sending the layup to our Republican Supreme Court, who will dunk on the States for us and nullify their law." We don't have to go through the motions of pretending we still live in a constitutional republic, it's okay to talk frankly about reality as it exists.
          • mindslight 9mo ago
            It goes deeper than that - the Supreme Council will issue non-binding "guidance" on the "shadow docket", so that when/if the fascists/destructionists [0] lose the Presidency, they can go back to being obstructionists weaponizing high-minded ideals in bad faith. As a libertarian, the way I see it is we can disagree politically on what constitutes constructive solutions, but it's time to unite, stop accepting any of the fascists' nonsense, and take back the fucking government - full support for the one remaining mainstream party that at least nominally represents the interests of the United States, while demanding they themselves stop preemptively appeasing the fascists. The Libertarian, Green, or even new parties can step up as the opposition. Pack the courts with judges that believe in America first and foremost, make DC and PR states to mitigate the fascists' abuse of the Senate, and so on. After we've stopped the hemorrhaging, work on fundamental things like adopting ranked pairs voting instead of this plurality trash. [0] I'd be willing to call them something else if they picked an honest name for themselves - they are most certainly not "conservatives"
        • Ritewut 9mo ago
          This is quite literally going to lead to a Supreme Court case about Federal Preemption. Bondi will challenge some CA law, they will lose and appeal until they get to the Supreme Court. I don't have any grace to give people at this point, you have to be willingly turning a blind eye if you do not see where this will end up.
          • 9mo ago
    • nhaehnle 9mo ago
      That's the whole point. They aren't law, and they were (probably) never meant to be so far-reaching, and yet the clear purpose of this Executive Order is to tell the states what laws they can enact. The EO doesn't have the legal power to do that directly, but it clearly outlines the intention to withdraw federal funding from states that refuse to toe the line.
  • deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
• treetalker 9mo ago
  peterlk and lesuorac nail it: the EO purports to preempt state law, but EOs aren't law and that's not how preemption works.
• ang_cire 9mo ago
  Probably something to do with the section titled: > Sec. 7. *Preemption of State Laws* Mandating Deceptive Conduct in AI Models.