Marco
Matt BlazeA reminder that "executive orders" are exactly that - orders from the president for the executive branch. They are not laws, and they do not directly bind anyone not in the executive branch of the US government. They might affect how laws are enforced and other things the executive branch does that affect private individuals, but they are not "orders" that private individuals (or organizations) are required to obey.
Ditto "commander-in-chief". The president is the "commander-in-chief" of the MILITARY and at the top of its chain of command. Those outside of the military are not part of the chain of command.
So… if the president issued an executive order that underwear must from now on be worn on the outside of clothing, that might require federal employees to change how they dress for work. But the rest of us would remain free in our sartorial choices.
(It would also be really weird, and suggest the president was drawing undue inspiration from fictional Latin American dictators, possibly implicating the 25th Amendment)
0ddj0bb@mattblaze as well as potentially all federal contractors. So pretty much all big tech, consulting, finance, hr etc. It would be a nontrivial order that would impact millions
@mattblaze for instance the executive order attacking #DEIA efforts in federal govt is sweeping across tech and consulting firms as well as other govt contractors.
So too will EOs impacting gender identity definitions.
This is not trivial, does impact millions of people, and the federal govt has 3million employees as of nov 2024. So even if it were just limited to the fed government, that isnt insignificant.
Cassandrich@0ddj0bb @mattblaze The order doesn't apply to them. It might mean contracts don't get renewed, but if the contracted company tries to apply rules that break the law (e.g. discriminatory or unsafe shit) to their employees just to keep their contracts, they're breaking the law and employees need not comply, and have grounds to sue when fired.
@dalias @[email protected] thats little comfort to the people this impacts. Oh hai you get the privilege of existential dread and having to wonder if you can resist all while risking your survival via employment?
@dalias also weve already seen impacts at universities who are stopping funding of conferences dedicated to having converdations about lgbtqia medical needs and health.
That silencing is massively impactful and yet wont spark a discrimination lawsuit.
This isnt a trivial thing.
Blue Emu
Andreas K@0ddj0bb @dalias Obeisance in advance.
Which is what Trump's coup which tries to redefine the Presidency even further than what it already is under the legal rules, relies on. People don't know what their legal rights are, what their legal obligations are, and suddenly an "executive order" becomes an absolutist "Fuhrer order" that overrides any legal construct, including the constitution.
Notice how I described it, the Nazis made this an art form.
@0ddj0bb @dalias
As I joked to my dad yesterday, we German-speakers are advantaged currently: Our language has the words to describe what happens in Washington D.C. in a nuanced way, we just have to use the tainted bad words from the history books from the Nazi period.
English misses them, and hence needs complex descriptions to catch the nuances.
Btw, my stepmum who is not a native did need an explanation what a "Führerbefehl" is, we do learn in school.
Trump cannot change the definition of US citizenship (as it is defined in the US Constitution) via an executive order.
#Hitler literally could change the definition of German citizenship, or rewrite any law or the German constitution, by publishing an order from himself.
The fact is that #Trump is obviously trying to exercise such power. Interpret it however you want it, but don't pretend the #Weirdo is not trying a #coup from the top.
pfriedma@dalias
Whether or not something is authorized, or applies to them, etc doesn't really matter if the organization acts though it is. Many folks will jump now to avoid scrutiny later. This is actively happening in the private sector right now, regardless of whether or not they're required to. Yeah. It's Technically not required. How does that help the impacted *now*
@0ddj0bb
Whether or not something is authorized, or applies to them, etc doesn't really matter if the organization acts though it is. Many folks will jump now to avoid scrutiny later. This is actively happening in the private sector right now, regardless of whether or not they're required to. Yeah. It's Technically not required. How does that help the impacted *now*
@0ddj0bb
@dalias
Like, Google wasn't required to drop pride and Black History Month from Calendar. Facebook wasn't required to rename non binary, trans, and pride themes. Sometimes companies do things because an EO provides a convenient excuse to do something unpopular they already wanted. Sometimes they do it to show loyalty to a fickle leader.
Sometimes it's to avoid perceived liability of targeted retribution by the government or shareholders.
Whether or not something is binding or not in a particular scope doesn't determine willingness (unless like it's a regulatory that gets in the way of profit then....)
@0ddj0bb
@mattblaze
Like, Google wasn't required to drop pride and Black History Month from Calendar. Facebook wasn't required to rename non binary, trans, and pride themes. Sometimes companies do things because an EO provides a convenient excuse to do something unpopular they already wanted. Sometimes they do it to show loyalty to a fickle leader.
Sometimes it's to avoid perceived liability of targeted retribution by the government or shareholders.
Whether or not something is binding or not in a particular scope doesn't determine willingness (unless like it's a regulatory that gets in the way of profit then....)
@0ddj0bb
@mattblaze
chris martens@chrisamaphone @dalias @pfriedma that isnt at all what Matt is saying. If he is then he has chosen exactly the wrong way to present this case.
@0ddj0bb
I will say after these weeks of having coworkers us clearly all in distress a reminder, however helpful, that even though people all around you are doing things, those things aren't actually legally required is... little solice. But that reaction says more about my current mh than anything.
@chrisamaphone
I will say after these weeks of having coworkers us clearly all in distress a reminder, however helpful, that even though people all around you are doing things, those things aren't actually legally required is... little solice. But that reaction says more about my current mh than anything.
@chrisamaphone
@chrisamaphone
I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing with OP per se... In as much as yes, OP is 100% legally accurate. But in practice, the impacts aren't constrained to that scope. Fed contractors are a special case because often agencies which hold the contract will "flow down" executive guidance and generally consider noncompliance as breach of contract. I'm don't know how forced that hand really is, but it hits pretty hard.
@dalias @0ddj0bb
I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing with OP per se... In as much as yes, OP is 100% legally accurate. But in practice, the impacts aren't constrained to that scope. Fed contractors are a special case because often agencies which hold the contract will "flow down" executive guidance and generally consider noncompliance as breach of contract. I'm don't know how forced that hand really is, but it hits pretty hard.
@dalias @0ddj0bb
viq@dalias @0ddj0bb @mattblaze Except with this line of thinking the last part breaks, because "sue when fired" engages judicial system, which AFAIK is federal employees, who are affected by the executive order, in how they behave, and in how they do their job of applying penalties in certain situations.
Tito Swineflu@mattblaze When I went to high school, it was the mid-80's and the world was still reeling from the appearance of Madonna on the scene. As a result, my school's official rule book had the brilliant line in it: "underwear is not outerwear."
Peter Ludemann@mattblaze
But what if the "executive order" is that federal employees can only serve people who are wearing their underwear outside their clothing?
Or would this be unconstitutional because it would affect the rest of us's sartorial choices (not that freedom of sartorial choice is anywhere in the Constitution AFAIK, but maybe there's an implied freedom ...)
[Although this is obviously weird, I can think of less weird EOs that have nasty knock-on effects, such as non-citizens can only be served between 8:00 and 8:15]
@PeterLudemann it might be a 1A violation to deny service to people not dressed like this, but other than that, yes, that’s a way such an order could affect regular citizens.
@mattblaze
At first anyway.
There would be the inevitable people that pushed for it in their workplace because...shrug, it's patriotic. Now it's part of the new dress code at ChickFilA and Hobby Lobby. Plus anyone expected to do business with the Fed.
Kohl's and Target have president's day underwear sales.
You get nasty looks from people if you're wearing your underwear the "woke" way. Etc.
That's a not impossible way that goes down.
At first anyway.
There would be the inevitable people that pushed for it in their workplace because...shrug, it's patriotic. Now it's part of the new dress code at ChickFilA and Hobby Lobby. Plus anyone expected to do business with the Fed.
Kohl's and Target have president's day underwear sales.
You get nasty looks from people if you're wearing your underwear the "woke" way. Etc.
That's a not impossible way that goes down.
@pfriedma You are welcome to use this either as an opportunity to learn something about executive orders or as an opportunity to try to prove how much smarter you are. Your choice, I’m good either way.
@mattblaze
What a strange choice of response.
I dont consider myself particularly smart. And I *will absolutely* be spending time learning about the law, as it's a matter of survival.
I personally believe it is worth exploring whether or not we're just talking about a president issuing an EO but also a cult-like figurehead making proclamations and how that effects near term impacts.
What a strange choice of response.
I dont consider myself particularly smart. And I *will absolutely* be spending time learning about the law, as it's a matter of survival.
I personally believe it is worth exploring whether or not we're just talking about a president issuing an EO but also a cult-like figurehead making proclamations and how that effects near term impacts.
Texas Technician@mattblaze If they were ever to enact something like this, I think that it would be done so that they can see who the true crazy loyalists are. This would be like the people who are wearing the ear bandages to rallies.
David@mattblaze It's worth remembering that Congress explicitly has the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces". Of course, this takes the form of the UCMJ. Unfortunately, it also takes the form of bases and weapon systems the military doesn't want. But that's something Congress needs to stop.
https://theonion.com/congress-reluctant-to-cut-funding-for-tank-that-just-sp-1819576530/ satirizes this.
Congress Reluctant To Cut Funding For Tank That Just Spins Around And Self-Destructs
WASHINGTON—Escalating recent budgetary disputes with the White House over military spending, members of Congress signaled their hesitance Thursday to curtail funding for the M114 Armored Combat Vehicle, a midsize tank whose sole capability is spinning 360 degrees in place and then exploding.
@mattblaze per U.S. Constitution - president directs law enforcement agencies and the military. the flow of money, what agencies made/destroyed goes to congress. enforcement of law itself and constitutionality of laws goes to courts. Trump has NO ABILITY to name lakes, rivers, oceans, gulfs, or anything else inside/outside the U.S. that goes to an international organization. renaming any such body WILL cost everyone billions, if not outright embargoes.
sortius@mattblaze the problem with this argument is that the DoJ sits under the executive, so whether they're codified laws or laws by proxy, they're functionally the same
@sortius No. You can not be charged with violating an executive order. That is not a crime. There is nothing for the DoJ to charge you with, unless you're also committing a violation of law.
Stop obeying in advance.
@mattblaze firstly, I'm not American, which I'm grateful for every day I exist.
Secondly, the DoJ has the Marshals Service under their purview, so, yeh, they can. Whether it's legal or not doesn't matter, because they don't actually care.
It's always the white dudes saying "actually technically" when the minorities are like "they'll just kill us anyway"; as I said, it's functionally a law, whether you like it, or not
@sortius you’re the law professor.
@mattblaze you may be a law professor, but this is past norms.
When the Nazis took over a number of law professors argued whether it was real or not.
They all died quite quickly under Hitler's rule.
So, yeh, law professor or not, there is no recourse to stop this. You can argue all you want, but this is a fascist takeover, not the norms that you work with
@mattblaze and I will add, that the general consensus among other law professors is you are wrong.
So some random dude whose posting stuff that doesn't line up with reality, or the law experts who are saying "we are on the precipice".
Who to believe?
@sortius this seems more about you than about me. I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
Marytzu@mattblaze @sortius fwiw I found this to be an interesting discussion. Valid and thought provoking points from both of you.
Gary Houston@sortius @mattblaze this is the executive order that commands the FBI etc., to shoot private individuals who do X or don't do Y. Perhaps private individuals can legally ignore it, and not be prosecuted. I suppose the US hasn't reached that point yet.
PhDogI think @sortius is suggesting that they will just make up something to charge you with. These people are criminals. They do not care what the law says.
Old Hippie Ⓥ Resistance!@mattblaze That's a great point. Unfortunately, many will follow it for personal and corporate gain.
Korawich Kavee@mattblaze I learn about the Separation of powers in Thai school as part of a subject Social Study. People tend to forget how things work.
Arena Cops 🇺🇦✌@mattblaze So people are still free to exercise their right to civil disobedience, right? 🤔😎
@ArenaCops it’s not even civil disobedience. You aren’t being ordered to do anything with an executive order (unless you’re a federal employee).
inpc@mattblaze so paper straws can still be used without federal charges? Phew!
@mattblaze Remember too that the next president can reverse them. If you commit a crime that the Doj doesn't enforce today, they might wait 4 years to enforce.
@bluGill an interesting question - which I think is unsettled - is whether you can rely as a defense on an executive order that explicitly says a federal criminal law will not be enforced (or will be interpreted in a particular way)
@mattblaze unsettled for sure, but I doubt the courts will give much weight for anything that doesn't pass congress. So you are possibly left hoping a statue of limitations runs out before the next administration gets around to you.
I would not want to be in that position.
The Turtle@mattblaze yeah, I don't work for trump.
CBinNYC@mattblaze I think it’s important to emphasize EXECUTIVE BRANCH. And Executive Orders do not always comply with law. Recently orders are WAY, WAY far from enforceable. The executive branch can not rewrite the constitution, for example.
Eckes 
@mattblaze the more interesting Wüstling is do you have to oben them when they are against law, formexample not enforcing a sanction is in direct violationnof the lawmakers Intention (or Constitution).
icasticoAnd EO that order federal workers to break the law can be ignored by those workers - such as those which attempt to impound funds against the wishes of the legislature. This is unconstitutional and should not be implemented by federal workers.
SearingTruth
Janis@mattblaze True, but they do change how entities react. We got a bill for my bother's Medicaid from the state. First time in 20 years. He takes in about $1200 in SSDI, and it's a $200 bill due inside a month, for which no one budgeted.
the may not BE laws, but they do end up MAKING laws as state entities are no about to laves their asses hanging out.
Which leave my vulnerable brother's ass hanging out.
@janisf I'm sorry about your brother. But I never said executive orders can't AFFECT people. In fact, I specifically said that that they can. I merely pointed out that private individuals aren't required to "obey" them.
@mattblaze Technically, neither are states or institutions, but they will. The individuals who can't comply nor resist are the ones who'll be cuaght in this meat grinder.
I just wanted, and still want, to draw attention to those people.
It's not just my brother. SSDI goes out to people with disabling anxiety, but seldom to those folks *for* their anxiety. They almost always have to qualify with another diagnosis.
Saying it's a wrecking ball instead of a bulldozer doesn't help.
Mimi@mattblaze
for now, for now...
for now, for now...
el Celio 🇪🇺 🇺🇦@mattblaze The Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln that freed millions of slaves was an executive order.
Executive orders have a lot of consequences also for non-federal employees.
@elCelio You might have noticed that I said that executive orders can affect private citizens. But they aren’t “orders” to anyone outside the executive branch.
@mattblaze
So slave owners were not compelled to free the slaves, only the federal officers were compelled to free them.
What if the owners opposed the federal officers? Could they be prosecuted?
(Yes, I know there was martial law, but what if there was no martial law) 🤔
So slave owners were not compelled to free the slaves, only the federal officers were compelled to free them.
What if the owners opposed the federal officers? Could they be prosecuted?
(Yes, I know there was martial law, but what if there was no martial law) 🤔
@elCelio The emancipation proclamation didn’t itself require slave owners to free their slaves. It ordered Union troops to protect any “fugitive” slaves they encountered while fighting the war, and ordered the release of captured slaves held by the government. But it wasn’t until the 13th Amendment was ratified (at the end of the war) that slave ownership per se became illegal.