I think you might be thinking about the time between a new congress and a new president. For example, Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act on his first day in office because the new congress in sworn in in January 3rd, passed the legislation and Obama took office on January 20th and was able to sign. But yes, all legislation passed by either house is done when Congress changes on January 3rd every two years.
green infrastructure gone 15/hr gone slashing infrastructure bill to 800M-1.2T at 25% tax rate for corporate America in
WTF's Garland doing? Does this orange fuck get the "people's lawyer" to be his personal attorney ad infinitum? https://www.npr.org/2021/05/25/9975...mo-on-trump-obstruction-decision-from-release DOJ Moves To Block Full Memo On Trump Obstruction Decision From Release https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...13c840-bfb3-11eb-b26e-53663e6be6ff_story.html Justice Dept. asks judge to toss lawsuit against Trump, Barr for violent clearing of Lafayette Square https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/doj-judge-dismiss-lawsuits-trump-lafayette-square.html Whatever the precedent may be for holding the president accountable for the actions of law enforcement, if the judge gives way to the DOJ request it would “authorize brutality with impunity” in the nation’s capital. If the cases are dropped it would suddenly make it impossible to hold officials accountable for similar offenses and the state-sponsored violence could escalate. Authorities “could have used live ammunition to clear the park, and nobody would have a claim against that as an assault on their constitutional rights,” said Scott Michelman, legal director for ACLU-D.C.
I heard something on tv about them not wanting to set precedent with a judge forcing The DOJ to release materials they don't won't to but I was doing something else at the time and wasn't paying much attention to really understand what they were saying.
The way to pay for it is obvious: 1) Deficit spending, i.e., "printing", and/or 2) Raising taxes. The Administration is wisely proposing the best way of all. It's a combination of deficits and well thought out tax hikes. Their tax proposals are reasonable and would have zero affect on the nations near-term economy. They would, however, have long term social benefits assuming the U.S. is planning on remaining a democracy rather than transitioning to a authoritarian State. The money projected to be spent on infrastructure, which of course must include education as its primary component, would furnish the fuel for future productivity growth, which would be expected to more than compensate, over time, for any infrastructure associated deficits. Anything less then what seems to many to be an already too modest, Biden, Infrastructure Bill might prove foolhardy; again assuming the country plans on remaining a Republic with strong democratic elements.
This statement from the Garland DOJ may explain the DOJ position regarding the Lafayette Square lawsuit. (All according to the Washington Post Article) Trump and other U.S. officials are immune from civil lawsuits over police actions taken to protect a president and to secure his movements, government lawyers said of the actions One can certainly take issue with the notion that tear gassing those in Lafayette Square is consistent with the need to protect the President and U.S. Officials, when these officials had no need to go anywhere near Lafayette Square for anything other than a purely political Photo Op. Nevertheless, this DOJ position may be on firmer legal footing then we realize. The DOJ's support for such a suit might be correctly labeled as "purely political".. . We have strong indications already that the Garland DOJ wants to steer clear of anything that smacks of being on weak legal grounds and thus subject to labeling as "purely political." On a related matter, there was an opinion piece on Bloomberg this past week pointing out that the Garland DOJ wanted to return to the days when investigations by the DOJ were carried out in strict secrecy until the decision to seek an indictment had been reached. That seems like a very wise policy to me, and quite consistent with our Bill of Rights.
Yeah that statement's hot garbage. Think of the precedent that sets. All Biden would need to do to shut down a 2nd amendment or prolife rally in a big city is to fly a VIP like Kamala into town to make an appearance and impose curfew on the whole town for her protection? There's no nuance to protect the people's 1st? And as the ACLU argues: Lawyers for the ACLU said that despite legal precedents, the government’s defense would “authorize brutality with impunity” in the heart of Washington at one of the most symbolic spaces within the seat of the federal government. If their defense was upheld, U.S. authorities “could have used live ammunition to clear the park, and nobody would have a claim against that as an assault on their constitutional rights,” said Scott Michelman, legal director for ACLU-D.C. Furthermore, why's DOJ getting involved and carrying water for Barr/Trump? Can't they rely on the court's judgment on merit on this one?
My first impression is exactly as yours. And the ACLU's position makes perfect sense to me as well. (I am a regular ACLU supporter.) However I have not read existing written statutes that pertain, which may indeed be statutes badly conceived. I am assuming lawyers in the DOJ have read these statutes and are basing their opinion on what's written. Assuming they are, it appears that the relevant statutes need revision. My assumption re the DOJ's diligence leaves me with no reasonable option other than to look up the statutes myself, which I am not inclined to do. I note that the ACLU's position is perhaps ambivalent regarding what existing statutes allow, which would be a question for the court. It would be nice to see this litigated. The ACLU seems to be telling us that if the DOJ's position is a legally correct one, then the relevant statutes are absurd; a position I would certainly agree with. We both agree that the best way to "heal" this country would be to see Mr. Trump properly charged and tried, which I would hope would result in Mr. Trump being hauled off in handcuffs, never to be heard from again... That type of "healing", would be a long lasting one, as it would serve as a warning to future, would-be-JACKASS Presidents. Biden is entitled to his personal opinion re prosecution of the former President and his cronies -- his opinion on this matter is one I personally think is unwise. Biden has said he'll maintain a hands off position relative to the DOJ. And that is at least a big step forward from what we experienced under the prior President.