Obviously it’s a Congressional responsibility. She could, however, prioritize the enforcement of existing laws without any new laws needed.
The trick is: are the laws that are currently on the books good enough to enforce?
A lot of them are old or for a different time or slightly different scenarios. For example, a lot of the anti-trust laws can get skirted because modern business practices might not “technically” meet the definition of the law even if the spirit of the law is absolutely being violated.
And the supreme Court just eliminated the executive branches authority to ‘clarify’/‘interpret’ how they should be enforced in modern society. (At least that’s my understanding of the Chevron deference stuff).
If she is a president, she can try to push for it sure…
But my point is that if laws are not enforced as is, what would the benefit be anyway?
We have rules against monopolies, we have rules against price gouging, we have some basic employment laws… Feds nor states will enforce them for benefit of the public.
I think as president it would be way easier to step up enforcement but no president is willing tot use their political power to piss off our dear owners.
We already have laws on the books for this but feds and state AGs refuse to enforce them.
Harris must know this… The only people who don’t is the target audience. It appears
If we have a law and we’re not enforcing it… isn’t it precisely the role of the executive branch to start enforcing it harder?
You’d like to think so. But we’ve got ample evidence to suggest the role of the executive branch is to subsidize business regulation of itself.
and they precisely won’t do it lol
regime whores are not here to help wage slaves jfc
Is it possible she could out stronger laws in the books? Sincerely asking.
Obviously it’s a Congressional responsibility. She could, however, prioritize the enforcement of existing laws without any new laws needed.
The trick is: are the laws that are currently on the books good enough to enforce?
A lot of them are old or for a different time or slightly different scenarios. For example, a lot of the anti-trust laws can get skirted because modern business practices might not “technically” meet the definition of the law even if the spirit of the law is absolutely being violated.
And the supreme Court just eliminated the executive branches authority to ‘clarify’/‘interpret’ how they should be enforced in modern society. (At least that’s my understanding of the Chevron deference stuff).
We don’t a legal issue, we have a political will issue.
What’s the point of stronger laws if the existing ones aren’t enforced? The stronger ones wouldn’t be enforced either.
If she is a president, she can try to push for it sure…
But my point is that if laws are not enforced as is, what would the benefit be anyway?
We have rules against monopolies, we have rules against price gouging, we have some basic employment laws… Feds nor states will enforce them for benefit of the public.
I think as president it would be way easier to step up enforcement but no president is willing tot use their political power to piss off our dear owners.
Check out cybersandwich’s reply to the same comment.