Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The fatal flaw with this reasoning is that every President gets to change their mind. So long as the law of the land delegates this authority to the executive, you'll always have to wonder what internal rulemaking the President has done, or plans to do.

This is well and truly a legislative problem.



The "fatal flaw" is belied by the empirical data

> look up the date of the relevant EO

> count the number of presidents that have not changed it

> compare cost of serveilance today versus the EO date

Technology has changed the meaning (practical ramifications) of the EO.

POTUS can re-ballance the EO without congress.

IF potus is unable or unwiling to do that, what makes you think he's going to sign a law doing the same?

Congressional obstruction-ism is no excuse for his 6 year inaction.


Any President can change their mind about executive orders.

Every President can't change their mind about the limitations imposed on them by Congress.

This is a very simple point. I'm sure you get it. I understand, you're mad at Barack Obama. Fair enough. But getting Barack Obama to play nice doesn't fix the fact that current law regarding surveillance is bad and must change.

"Obstructionism" isn't the problem. This isn't a partisan issue. The law is the way the law is because both sides of the aisle want it that way.


This isn't a partisan issue. The law is the way the law is because both sides of the aisle want it that way.

That's why the article's main/underlying premise is absurd.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: