They are absolutely not, however, a de facto endrun around the legislative process which gives the president unilateral powers to create policy if Congress doesn't do what he wants.

Show thread

Reminder: while the limits of executive orders are Constitutionally vague, it's generally agreed they can be used to make clarifications to existing law, especially as those clarifications pertain to directing federal agencies. They are, of course, subject to judicial review.

The "fact checking is editorializing and therefore censorship and must be regulated" line of thinking (if you can call it that) is garbage. If that's true, why isn't there a federal regulatory agency that checks the "fairness" of newspaper editorial boards?

Government is not an arbiter of truth. This is the precedent established in the John Peter Zenger trial, which laid the groundwork for the First Amendment. Trump is about to upend that.

katherineemily.substack.com/p/

This is unintelligible. And wildly unconstitutional. But, even when it's inevitably struck down, the precedent--of using executive orders to unilaterally attempt this kind of action--remains. And that's where the real danger lies. scribd.com/document/463379849/

RT @RobPWJ
Conservatives,

On this Trump/Twitter/#Section230 stuff, there are a grand total of two opinions on offer:
1. Twitter should decide what content is allowed on Twitter
2. The government should decide what content is allowed on Twitter

One option is pro-freedom. The other is not.

And, as with anything sold on the concept of "fairness", a sad day for personal freedom.
---
RT @realDonaldTrump
This will be a Big Day for Social Media and FAIRNESS!
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/st

That's not how that works. Even if it were, why does the Senator think it's appropriate for government to be making determinations about what an "editorial role" is? How quickly the right forgets how the Fairness Doctrine hurt them...
---
RT @marcorubio
The law still protects social media companies like @Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers.

But if they have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publishe…
twitter.com/marcorubio/status/

Proxy voting is not perfect, but it at least leaves a documentary record of members' votes. It's also hard to see how it's unconstitutional: Article I, Section 5 is pretty unequivocal in stating that each house "may determine the rules of its proceedings."

Republicans have chosen to abandon the idea that private businesses have the right to self-regulate, free of the improperly exerted power of limited government. This devolution in ideology is second in disappointment only to their abandonment of free speech advocacy.
---
RT @realDonaldTrump
Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can…
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/st

In a properly functioning political culture, local elections would generate far more emotional turmoil than federal elections.

katherineemily.substack.com/p/

Reminder: the president can't abolish federal agencies. The nondelegation doctrine gives Congress all legislative power. It can, with clear guidelines, give the executive power to reorganize federal agencies. Even then it's a statutory power: Congress can still overrule.

Reminder: the president can't abolish federal agencies. The nondelegation doctrine gives Congress all legislative power. It can, with clear guidelines, give the executive power to reorganize federal agencies. Even then it's a statutory power: it can't be used to abolish agencies.

Political value-judgments are incompatible with the egalitarianism required for individual rights to flourish. I want a politician who looks at me and sees the rights I hold. And nothing more.

Show thread

I don't want a president who "stands with me." I want a president who stands in defense of civil liberties and individual rights. I don't want a politician to sympathize, empathize or commiserate with my plight.

You've lost the argument the moment your candidate claims to be a "palatable, persuasive" advocate for a particular ideology. That label suggests other advocates of that ideology are not these things. It paints the message you're trying to promote as inherently extreme.

New rule: Editors who allow any phrase related to "Should we have listened to the WHO?" to appear in print without consulting AP Style and appropriately reworking this acronym so it's clear we're talking about the UN org. and not the band, should be forced to copy edit Faulkner.

100%. There are plenty who want the economy reopened but still believe in personal responsibility, respect private business' safety measures & practice social distancing in personal lives w/ those vulnerable to the virus. But that's not who media shows.
---
RT @MarkRPellegrino
I wonder why the media only highlights the stupid people in the ‘liberty movement’? Could it be that they want you, the public, to conflate liberty with stup…
twitter.com/MarkRPellegrino/st

LP just selected a moderate and an anarchist. Whether this coalition will be successful and attract two very different ideological demographics will be interesting to watch.
---
RT @subversive_pub
The 2020 LP ticket is not unlike Reagan ticket in '76. Reagan, considered too extreme, selected a Dem VP. He went too far and ultimately alienated the people he was trying to appease. He did not win the nomination.
twitter.com/subversive_pub/sta

The 2020 LP ticket is not unlike Reagan ticket in '76. Reagan, considered too extreme, selected a Dem VP. He went too far and ultimately alienated the people he was trying to appease. He did not win the nomination.

Show more
Liberdon

Liberdon is a Mastodon instance for libertarians, ancaps, anarchists, voluntaryists, agorists, etc to sound off without fear of reprisal from jack or zuck. It was created in the wake of the Great Twitter Cullings of 2018, when a number of prominent libertarian accounts were suspended or banned.