Trump’s tweets have no legal force

J

jamesdyson

BANNED
Banned
Trump’s tweets have no legal force
Our government must ignore Trump’s tweets; they are not a legal means for the President to make Presidential acts.

If a President wants to make a presidential act lawful he/she must present this act in righting with his/her signature at the bottom with a valid date. In some cases, a witness must be included with signature.

Otherwise; trump’s babbling mumbo jumbo is just that, crapola; and nothing more

Anyone here care to agree/disagree-?
;)
 
J

jamesdyson

BANNED
Banned
Sooner or later someone is going to hack the computer tweeting process and fake a “trump” tweet & that tweet will inflame the public. Over 50% will believe it came from trump. Then a second tweet and a third and before you know it; we are heading blindly into world war three.

Just an opinion
:p
 
G

Gary K

New member
Banned
Wow. What a brilliant idea. Tweets are not authoritative legally. Who woulda thought it.

But it also means AOC's tweets are meaningless. So are Hillary's, Elizabeth Warren's, Joe Biden's, and all the rest of the Democrats and RINOs tweets. But who woulda guessed it's all politics?
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
jamesdyson said:
Trump’s tweets have no legal force
Our government must ignore Trump’s tweets; they are not a legal means for the President to make Presidential acts.

If a President wants to make a presidential act lawful he/she must present this act in righting with his/her signature at the bottom with a valid date. In some cases, a witness must be included with signature.

Otherwise; trump’s babbling mumbo jumbo is just that, crapola; and nothing more

Anyone here care to agree/disagree-?
;)
Click to expand...



OK, I'll bite - Trump's tweets are indeed legal means for the president to enact policy, as binding on the citizenry as laws signed into force, and must be regarded as such


further, future historians will regard trump's use of social media to run the country as a brilliant act by a brilliant man, a watershed in the development of our country's governance, the point at which the plug to drain the swamp was finally pulled :)
 
Nihilo

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
ok doser said:
future historians will regard trump's use of social media to run the country as a brilliant act by a brilliant man, a watershed in the development of our country's governance, the point at which the plug to drain the swamp was finally pulled :)
Click to expand...
Pretty much agreed. I've thought his tweet storms (the activity itself, not necessarily any content) were brilliant from the start, and I even floated the notion that all future presidents must through force of law do the same thing.

It's nice to know what the president's thinking, at all times. When would you Not want to know what your president is thinking? :think:
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
This is interesting... and kinda poetic justice.

Trump Can’t Block Critics From His Twitter Account, Appeals Court Rules
The decision may have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to officials’ accounts in the social-media era.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday. The ruling could have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to the social-media era.

Because Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts — and engaging in conversations in the replies to them — because he does not like their views, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled unanimously.

The ruling was one of the highest-profile court decisions yet in a growing constellation of cases addressing what the First Amendment means in a time when political expression increasingly takes place online. It is also a time, Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote, when government conduct is subject to a “wide-open, robust debate” that “generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen.”

The First Amendment prohibits an official who uses a social media account for government purposes from excluding people from an “otherwise open online dialogue” because they say things that the official finds objectionable, Judge Parker wrote.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

“This debate, as uncomfortable and as unpleasant as it frequently may be, is nonetheless a good thing,” the judge wrote. “In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html

:chuckle:
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
jamesdyson said:
Trump’s tweets have no legal force
Our government must ignore Trump’s tweets; they are not a legal means for the President to make Presidential acts.

If a President wants to make a presidential act lawful he/she must present this act in righting with his/her signature at the bottom with a valid date. In some cases, a witness must be included with signature.

Otherwise; trump’s babbling mumbo jumbo is just that, crapola; and nothing more

Anyone here care to agree/disagree-?
;)
Click to expand...

barbie sez yer wrong:

The Barbarian said:
... Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top