[llamaimperative]

There is no way the President can commit that these services will not accrue massive fines throughout his non-enforcement period.

And actually your read is wrong: the President does have an obligation to enforce laws, it's just in practice there are all sorts of ways one can effectively bury this obligation under claims of different prioritization. They are not really allowed to come out and just say: "I am choosing not to enforce this law because I disagree with it."

[reubenmorais]

> the President does have an obligation to enforce laws

This is only true as far as other people are ready to keep the president in check. I only have the surface knowledge of US politics, but from the outside, it seems like the American institutions that were supposed to balance the executive power are all being quite successfully sabotaged.

[llamaimperative]

That's a different argument than the one GP made.

One of the things that makes it more difficult to enforce those obligations is people's mistaken belief that those obligations do not exist.

So when people say those obligations don't exist, they should be told they are wrong.

[reubenmorais]

Fair enough.

[sanderjd]

Not yet, but maybe in the near future. We'll see! The ultimate check is too many people getting too pissed.

[Dalewyn]

Disclaimer: IANAL.

The Executive Branch (President, White House) has a responsibility to execute the law as legislated by the Legislative Branch (Congress) and judged by the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) if applicable.

Trump is citing House Resolution 8038[1], Division D, Section 2, subsection A, paragraph 3[2] which states (emphasis mine):

>(3) EXTENSION.—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—

>(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.

In plain English, this means Trump once he is President will have authority to order a one-time up-to 90-day extension to enforcing the ban if TikTok can present evidence that they are in the process of selling to an American entity.

If TikTok cannot present the evidence or they still do not complete a sale within the 90-day extension, the ban will apply and must be enforced by the President.

As the law in question was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (Biden), the President (Biden and Trump) cannot overrule or otherwise refuse the law with an Executive Order. The President must enforce and act within the powers vested in him by the law.

It is questionable if Trump's claim of not penalizing violators of the law prior to an approved 90-day extension is legal; the law allows no such powers to the President.

Disclaimer: IANAL.

[1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038...

[2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8038...

[_yb2s]

> It is questionable if Trump's claim of not penalizing violators of the law prior to an approved 90-day extension is legal; the law allows no such powers to the President.

The president has the power to pardon, which could be interpreted in that way.

I'm no legal scholar, but I think offering the pardon up front with the intention of circumventing the law would itself have been a crime up until the recent July supreme court ruling that now appears to make it perfectly legal: absolute immunity for all official acts including pardons.

[Dalewyn]

Yes, the legal question was decided last year by the Supreme Court (and it will work in all Presidents' favors going forward, Trump included). The question of duty however lies with Congress. The Executive Branch is tasked with executing the laws passed by Congress, and Congress always has the option of impeaching a President who refuses his duty to execute and enforce the law.

[sethammons]

They impeached Trump. Twice. Didn't do anything.

[Dalewyn]

He was acquitted on both counts, so no he wasn't impeached.

In fact, there has never[1] been an impeached President in American history.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_impeachment_trial_in_t...

[IAmGraydon]

>In plain English, this means Trump once he is President will have authority to order a one-time up-to 90-day extension to enforcing the ban if TikTok can present evidence that they are in the process of selling to an American entity.

There is zero chance he can satisfy A, B, and C tomorrow. Zero.

[Dalewyn]

I agree, the realistic chance of TikTok providing evidence of an active and ongoing sale process when they hadn't entertained even the mere thought of a sale is astronomically low.

Then again, reality can be weird sometimes. Never say never until the fat lady sings.

[AngryData]

Why are they not able to not enforce the law? The right for law enforcing entities and persons to not enforce the law due to personal discretion has been upheld many times in the past. Cops don't have to do it, prosecutors don't have to do it, not even judges have to do it although they almost always do because otherwise it creates friction between prosecution and the judge and the judge is likely to get booted for it eventually because successful prosecutions is how law enforcement and courts earn most of their money and unsuccessful arrests and prosecutions is how they lose money. I don't see how or why the executive branch is under any obligations to enforce any laws, feds don't often enforce marijuana laws in legal states despite being federally illegal still is an easy example.

The only real check against the president/executive branch is the legislative branch having the power to impeach the president and get them replaced, or by legislatively dismantling or changing the internal rules of a department. They lose their jobs, but aren't liable for anything or breaking any laws I know of. Just the same as states can boot out judges or prosecutors if they don't like how they operate, and police departments can fire officers if they don't like how they operate. At no point did cops or prosecutors or judges break the law by not enforcing the law, they merely piss off the state that is funding them and now losing additional money due to lack of enforcement and prosecution, and I don't know how the president or executive branch is any different.

[llamaimperative]

Go look it up instead of having me explain it to you. You're just verbosely asserting your opinion, and at least in the US, your opinion does not map to how the law actually works.

US Constitution Section 2 Article 3: "[The President]... shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

[sethammons]

So when past presidents have said they wont prosecute marijuana laws, what was that?

Your argument reminds me of the clip where the guy who had his license revoked for DUI is surprised when the car starts anyway. Just because a law says a thing, a person still has to action something. If the boss says don't do it, you don't do it. Don't rightly matter if the law says you should.

[llamaimperative]

> So when past presidents have said they wont prosecute marijuana laws, what was that?

Can you cite an example? If you're talking about the Biden admin, here is what the AG said:

"I do not think it the best use of the Department’s limited resources to pursue prosecutions of those who are complying with the laws in states that have legalized and are effectively regulating marijuana..."

I.e. exactly what I said is defensible in certain scenarios – and indeed must be defended, potentially in court. It is not POTUS simply saying "I won't do it."

[kelnos]

I'm not sure how you can hold that position; the AG is the arm of the president. If the AG says "I won't do it", then that is, by extension, the president saying the same.

And I don't think Garland's longer, winding way of saying what he said doesn't reduce to "I won't do it".

[llamaimperative]

I have explained the difference already and cited specific examples. It’s a you problem if you’re trying to interpret the words another way.

[bdangubic]

you missed few US government and US history classes growing up, eh? :)

[sanderjd]

You're the one who has this wrong, and now you're being rude about it.

The enforcement of the law is not at the president's discretion. That would make Congress powerless. Congress is not powerless.

[sanderjd]

So under this logic, the president can decide not to enforce the laws that require they and their family, friends, associates, and allies to pay taxes?

Don't think so!