worldnews

4831 readers

1 users here now

Rules:

Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
No racism or bigotry.
Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.

Instance-wide rules always apply.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

242

Biden administration staff sign open letter demanding cease-fire in Israel-Hamas war (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He can veto the legislation, and (more contentiously) he can issue executive orders blocking the implementation of the legislation. Or least of all, use his human mouth to speak words against the legislation (the "bully pulpit").

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So he should veto legislation he hasn't gotten, write an executive understanding order, which again can not set new conditions, or speak against aid to an ally. Doesn't seem to be cease fire material to me.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

"He hasn't gotten"? He drafted the request:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-drafts-100-billion-foreign-aid-package-including/story?id=104059871

write an executive understanding order, which again can not set new conditions,

He is bound by existing conditions, e.g. the ratification of the Geneva Convention, not to facilitate genocide. He is currently being sued for this.

edit: To be sure, the reason I wrote this is contentious, the actual scope of EOs (not to be confused with a private MOU, which isn't applicable nor legally binding) is contentious. The reason we have the executive branch to begin with, in terms of checks and balances, is to ensure there can be a refusal to implement. Although it's a non-issue in this case since he's asking for it, it would only become an issue with a 2/3 majority ready to force legislation through and with him actually opposed to it. Disclaimer, not a lawyer, just know some fundamentals.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He hasn't gotten"? He drafted the request:

The legislation is not on the desk, you know that but are being obtuse

He is bound by existing conditions, e.g. the ratification of the Geneva Convention, not to facilitate genocide.

Has the International Criminal Court charged anyone on genocide? The President is bound by the legislation in front of them, not your feelings.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I will never understand how people have the nerve to leave comments about things they don't understand or know anything about.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

Really? That's the best you can do?