As a modern state with a functionning justice system

That might just be the best joke I’ve heard all week.

Just say you like trump ffs

What about all the innocent women who are dying in our country because of who trump appointed to the supreme court and the result was the overturning roe vs wade?

Do those lives matter at all to you? Women bleeding to death in their cars because hospitals refuse to treat a miscarriage.

What about the kids who get massacred in school shootings because Trump and people like him won’t support increased gun control legislation?

What about all the innocent people of color who have been killed by police? Do they matter to you?

If trump gets into the office not only will the Palestinian people be far worse off, so will every group I mentioned above and more.

You said you are against killing innocent people, then why dont you care about the women, children, and people of color who are getting killed in our country needlessly?

There’s far more destruction for far more people if trump gets into office. If you want to double down, go for it, because I think it’s worth reminding people just how much death in our country can attributed to Trump. Every woman who dies from preventable pregnancy complications. Trump directly contributed to that.

Then you’re making an emotional decision based on refusing to accept anything less than perfect, and since perfection is not an option in this election, and because not voting is essentially a vote that trump doesn’t have to counter, abstaining voters are proportionally more helpful to trump than they are to Harris.

K while everyone else at the adult table discusses things you can play with your imaginary options.

Every country kills innocent people. It happens.

Help elect Kamala Harris by voting for her.

Stay out of our politics.

Assuming you are actually an American citizen: you vote for Kamala Harris.

Ah, so that’s why you’re surprised some people have a hard time supporting a candidate that wants to allow the genocide to continue.

Impossible for people to have a conscience, it must be some sort of psyop.

Palestinians are not genocidal. They don’t want to exterminate Israelis.

Even if some or most do wish to exterminate, this is arguably understandable. How many bombs would have to fall on you and your family before you were extremely angry? Maybe even, we could say, rationally angry?

Palestinians have entire documents and conferences on what to do with non-useful Jews. As for the useful ones, they will not be allowed to flee Palestine. Doctors and such will be prevented from emigrating.

There are no angels in this conflict. Both sides have desires for a genocide.

Great idea! Maybe we could look to history to find the last time that Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together in a single state, and name the new country whatever that is.

Hmmm… Looks like in the 1900s there was a country called Palestine where Muslims and Jews live equally. Let’s get rid of Israel and Palestine, and replace them both with Palestine.

Isn’t the issue of a single country that the Palestinian population is much higher than the Israeli population, so if there were a single democracy, it would mean that Palestinians would basically be fully in charge?

I think this is why a federated or two state solution is often suggested. Both parties need at least some level of autonomy.

I think it’s one of those weasel words some leftists use so they can ignore their own hypocrisy while they moralize like the evangelical Christians they were raised as.

If you want to keep up with daily events in the Executive, the Federal Register (Fed. Reg. or FR) cannot be beat. It contains all of the FOIA request, every public inspection requirement, CFR proposals, Executive Orders, Presidential Proclamations, and so forth.

If you want something more specific to rule making, you can find that here. Rule making makes a bit more sense when you think about it. Say Congress passes a law that says “build me a road between Texas and South Dakota”. The law will usually say who (department) is in charge of that and then that department will take the money and begin rule making. Rule making is basically laying out the path the road will take, what kind of materials will be used, what companies are allowed to bid, environmental guidelines, etc, etc ,etc… Once those rules have been made the who is going to do it is determined. Like Highways in this case, the Federal Government provides the money and the States are the ones who select the labor and make minor course corrections to the highway (like if it’s about to pass through a cemetery or something).

Rule making is also sometimes called regulation. Because the agency put in charge is regulating the action being done to ensure compliance with what they think the law is asking for, because Congress is very NOT detail oriented until they really want to be. Also with rule making, Congress can “ask” a department to come in and meet with them if Congress thinks some of the rules don’t mesh with what they were thinking.

There’s also override laws, which Congress passes like a normal law. These laws, remember the Constitution requires laws to be applied equally if they involve the public so these override laws are written as such so that they only apply to a executive department, specifically smack the department over the head and “corrects” where the rule making went wrong. These don’t happen often, but we did have one back in Trump days over the FCC. The FCC had made a new rule that required ISPs to get permission to sell customer data, and Congress plus then President Trump overrode the FCC, explicitly banning them from ever creating such a rule. It’s still open if the FTC could make such a rule. But that’s an example of an override of regulation.

Oh also my whole comment didn’t even touch on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which is what would happen if a Secretary quits. Very, very, very long story short. The Deputy Secretary automatically gets to become the “acting” Secretary BUT they cannot do any “exclusive actions”, which that Leahy rule is indeed an exclusive action. The “acting” Secretary can only maintain “status quo” until the Senate Confirms that the acting secretary is indeed the actual secretary. But an “acting” position can only last for 210 days, after which the office is then considered “vacant”, but none of that matters anymore because Congress uses “pro forma” sessions to prevent recessed appointments. But typically, if a position is “vacant” and Congress is not in Session, the President can make a recess appointment.

If you ask me, what we really need is an Amendment to the Constitution that provides the President a way to declare Congress as absent and if some threshold of Congress doesn’t become present, then the President can then call Congress not in Session. The whole “pro forma” sessions of Congress really needs to stop, like in a really bad way. Sort of like how Filibuster should return to requiring a person physically speak for the entire duration of the filibuster and must remain on topic.

Congress has gotten really soft on everything and that’s allowed them to permit a lot of bad faith actions in Congress to happen. It used to be that it was “gentleman’s agreement” that Congress would behave and act in good faith, but boy have we really fallen down on that since the 1980s.

Anyway, I’m rambling.

it’d be a poor course it empirically incorrect on a number of counts.

Ugh. This is why I hate summary because there’s always someone who is like “you didn’t explain EvErYtHiNg so you’re wrong!” While you’re trying to flesh things out you always miss a ton of things too that neither one of us touched on, and I didn’t because it increases what needs to be talked about when what I originally said was correct.

entire wall of text

I hate this term because it shows that people are trying to oversimplify something that is in itself complex. Additionally, you’re trying to point out things but you didn’t cover everything either. Which is why especially here, this annoying. You’re basically trying to make an argument of “you explain too much” and “you didn’t explain enough”. It’s a damned if you do and damned if you don’t argument that you’re trying to make. I’m calling you out on it because you are attempting a no correct way to answer line of questioning. I’ll give you this reply, but you keep going on this thread like this, I’ll just block you. I don’t have the time for childish game. If you have a point make it, if you don’t stop beating around the bush. That’s all there is to it.

a position that is easily filled without congressional confirmed

That’s not correct. I’ll point to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 5 USC § 3345. You seem smart enough, you can figure out why Sec. of State quitting and the deputy becoming acting would trigger such a response.

someone didn’t pay attention to trumps presidency at all

Again, I’ll point to the many failures on exclusive authority during that term. Namely you can see the multiple failures along the regulation of coal that failed exclusive authority. Acting has only nonexclusive duties for the 210 day period and the extended period of 300 days on inauguration. Hence the failures on rule making.

what you’re missing is that during that time the president can just not due what the law says and these things can take years.

Yes, this is why enjoining an EO exists as a measure for the courts. Immediate relief is something the claimants can seek when bringing the issue up to the courts. That’s why you hear emergency relief often with controversial orders.

Secondly even if a judge blocks an EO the president can still do it the judge has no enforcement mechanism.

The enforcement is via Congress at that point. If a just rules something as violation of the Court order, that’s easily handled by Congress.

worcester v georgia

Just so we’re clear the Nullification scandal, Jackson indicated he was ready to march troops into South Carolina and shooting the government if need be. That was with eye to Georgia daring them the exact same thing. We’d revisit that willingness to march troops into the State and start shooting State Government members about thirty years later.

So just, so we’re clear the Worcester you cite, we got ready to have a preemptive war over the matter. I’m not sure the argument you’re providing holds a lot of water here in that “they can do what they want to do with no ramifications”. Clearly getting shot at by the Army is a ramification that at the time neither party wanted to try out. But we did give it a go a bit later.

abraham lincoln did it w/ habeus corpus

Yeah. Thing called the Civil War.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Was kicked to Congress, like I said it would be. Was mulled and Congress decided to take a pass. But that’s not free from consequences. Additionally, Congress had indicated to FDR to wrap that shit up with the alphabet groups. You’ll note how many of them didn’t last. CCC still a thing?

biden can easily deal with blinken, its called firing and assigning a temporary individual to the role

Again see FVRA.

not like he has a lot of time left there’d be no time to confirm a new individual anyways

Again see FVRA, carry over has a lot more impact in the first 300 day period than having an acting position.

Now Harris is, she’s the one who has committed to genocide at this point thats causing the issue not blinken

That is just plainly incorrect.

You’re entire ‘civics’ lesson ignores the historical realities of the presidency and EOs

And you covered zero of them either. I’ve provided more context to the examples that you gave. But the reality is that “the historical realities of EOs” is a complex issue. But apparently you don’t like walls of text.

especially in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers which expanded this ability by conferring it judicial backing

I take it that you are referring to Trump v US. None of that has any bearing on the matter of what Bliken does or doesn’t do. If Biden simply just withheld funds and gave everyone the finger, he’d still be subject to Congressional review of his actions and possible impeachment. That is not being free of ramifications.

Every candidate but Harris will ensure that Palestinian suffering increases.

Harris has not said anything concrete about holding Israel back. Or stopping shipments.

Removed by mod

All I’m advocating is for people to vote for whoever fits their values best, whether thats third party, democrat, republican, or not voting at all if there really isnt any valid ones.

The problem is people who have the perspective that you vote against the worst candidate rather than for the best one, in my opinion.

Tell me more about myself please.

D) Good ol’ not feeding the trolls.

Yes, that’s the sound of things getting worse.

Must be awesome to live such a privileged life that that’s the only thing you have to care about in this election cycle.

Women’s healthcare issues? LGBTQ rights? Interracial marriages? The US economy? The environment? Kids’ lives? Nah, you only care about Palestinian people. Well done you! Golf claps for you.

Removed by mod

Biden tried just slowing weapon shipments earlier on and Rs and some Ds rammed a bill through saying nope, no slowdowns on these shipments allowed.

When you have a racist right-wing party, and a right-wing party that supports killing innocents, I am not as enthused to vote as I would be if there were a clear choice between them.