Jennifer Elsea

This description is the opposite of what that bill does. It eliminated the offsets. In the Senate, 20 nay votes (all GOP). In the House, discharge petition required to get it to the floor, 4 dems & 71 GOP voted against.

Silver lining: Maybe gas prices will get so high that, in order to fit all the numbers on the gas signs and in the pump interface screen, they will finally be forced to delete that infernal nine tenths of a cent.

The War Crimes Act provides a means to prosecute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other war crimes, but it doesn’t cover launching a war of aggression. Here’s a list of crimes it covers, for anybody interested.

I’m not trying to argue what intent might be there, just that expectations (fears) should be tempered a bit by assessing actual capacity.

*SSS

I dunno. I think belief in institutional capacity to institute a draft overestimates those institutions. AFAIK, SSA has a list of adult men and where they lived at age 18. It can determine whether male applicants for certain gov benefits are ineligible for failure to register. Capacity to serve? NSM

Reinstituting the draft would be a lot heavier a lift than a lot of the orders he truths out. The reason I wondered was that I have seen the assertion more than once that a national emergency permits the President to start up the draft, which, no.

But he doesn’t have that authority. Congress would have to reauthorize any draft under the MSSA. Does he believe he has that ”right”?

Possibly, I just want to push back on the framing the proponents of the emergency declaration are using, that it would permit the President to decide which laws apply and which don’t. Is there a way to cause chaos without regard to law? I imagine so, but let’s not pretend law allows it.

Also

There is no law that would permit all of the things that are allegedly being planned, with or without an emergency. Stoking an emergency by itself would not change that.

The bee be all knowing. It can sense disdain.

I have no idea, really.

But appointing one of those requires 15 days’ prior notice to Congress describing the duties and purpose of the position, why it does not involve significant authority, and “the rationale for giving the specific title and function to the position.”

Special Envoy trivia: Title 22 permits the President to appoint special envoys, without Senate advice and consent as long as they do not “exercise significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.” 22 USC §2651a.

Nah. It’s just the same thing all over again (and again and again…).

Maybe the plan involves interpreting foreign interest way more broadly than before. Like asserting China has an interest in election equipment because it would like to hack it, therefore the President can freeze such equipment and prohibit its use. Or something. Assuming proponents have thought thru

The draft EO that’s circulating would piggyback on the election interference EO from 2018, which declared a national emergency under IEEPA to sanction foreigners suspected of interfering in U.S. elections. But it does not explain how IEEPA would authorize USG interference in state-run elections.

How does something China allegedly did in 2020 make for an emergency in 2026? We’ve had elections since then.

SAVE FLOOF TIME! That’s what we need more of

The common interpreters are mistaken

A law enforcement approach is useless against drug cartels, therefore it is necessary to pardon kingpins.

Iran is at war with U.S., and has been for decades, but we are not at war. I believe that’s how it works.

Get ready for the race to the courthouse so everyone can apply for a legal name change to “Bivens.”

Also places with no military value not previously considered for targeting will be subjected to certain death and destruction because of Iran’s capitulation? Failure to capitulate quickly enough? I, too, find this very confusing.

Check

Wordle 1,721 5/6

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Huh, it almost sounds like they’re saying the harm is irreparable after all.

Yes, got that, sorry. I had been wondering whether the position that we have been at war for 50 years had been thought through as it applies to Iran-Contra.

Right, since it turns out we were at war with Iran at the time, treason might have been charged. Is that the position?

The boss can’t suspend or pull the underlings’ law licenses for ethics violations, but can fire them for failure to follow orders, leaving them at the mercy of the state bar again for whatever they might have done before reaching their moral limit. Perverse incentive structure.

The idea is that both sides have equal rights and obligations in war regardless of whether the war was justified. Otherwise each would declare the other illegitimate, accord them no rights, and feel unbound by the in bello rules. That’s the theory, anyway, for separating ad bellum from in bello.