Trump’s tweets have no legal force

[justme2]

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-?

[Imprecise Interrupt]

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-?

I agree that Trump's tweets have no legal authority. But who said they did? They are statements of opinion, often some pretty wild stuff but after all this is Twittter. Are there any examples of Trump give directives via tweets?

As far as requiring signed documents, that is the case with formal executive orders. Yet Obama commented that if Congress did not do what he wanted, he could pick up the phone. Giving orders via the chain of command to perform actions already in the purview of the recipient of the order could be done verbally with no legal problem.

[justme2]

I agree that Trump's tweets have no legal authority. But who said they did?
They are statements of opinion,
often some pretty wild stuff
but after all this is Twittter.

Are there any examples of Trump give directives via tweets?

[quote="Imprecise Interrupt
As far as requiring signed documents, that is the case with formal executive orders.[/quote]
[quote="Imprecise InterruptYet Obama commented that if Congress did not do what he wanted, he could pick up the phone.[/quote]
Phone & tweet are not the same. Phone conversations are private, tweets, by their nature are on the web; for all to see, read javascript:emoticon(':study:')
[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 572#969572]Giving orders via the chain of command to perform actions already in the purview of the recipient of the order could be done verbally with no legal problem.[/quote]

In your own words, define the following------

[1] "purview"
[2] "recipient"
[3] "formal executive order"

Once done, and you and I can agree to your definition; as used in the referenced post, we can get back to the OP

[Imprecise Interrupt]

I agree that Trump's tweets have no legal authority. But who said they did?
They are statements of opinion,
often some pretty wild stuff
but after all this is Twittter.

Are there any examples of Trump give directives via tweets?

[quote="Imprecise Interrupt
As far as requiring signed documents, that is the case with formal executive orders.

[quote="Imprecise InterruptYet Obama commented that if Congress did not do what he wanted, he could pick up the phone.[/quote]
Phone & tweet are not the same. Phone conversations are private, tweets, by their nature are on the web; for all to see, read javascript:emoticon(':study:')
[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 572#969572]Giving orders via the chain of command to perform actions already in the purview of the recipient of the order could be done verbally with no legal problem.[/quote]

In your own words, define the following------

[1] "purview"
[2] "recipient"
[3] "formal executive order"

Once done, and you and I can agree to your definition; as used in the referenced post, we can get back to the OP

[/quote]

If you do not know what those terms mean, you should not be discussing this topic. I said what I said and the meaning is plain. Tweets have no legal authority. Other actions of a President can.

I have no intention of getting roped into the usual Hate Trump / Love Trump dichotomy, which is clearly what you want. Especially with yet another definition game. I work with actual real world details not allegiance to ideologies. Deal with it.

[justme2]

You need to take a step back and rethink what the OP is really all about.
We are not talking about a “tweet� by anyone who just may have an opinion; one way or another.
This is about the President of the USA who “tweets� something and his administration carries out this tweet as if it is an executive order enforceable by law.
A “tweet� is not an executive order.
In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law.[1] The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

A tweet is just a fart in the wind; not a law & Trump’s tweets stink like dog farts

[justme2]

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