Trump has achieved the ideal about which Nixon could only dream: the imperial presidency. No one will stand up to him, and the Extreme Court has declared that he is above the law (and immune from prosecution). This one-man authoritarian rule is altogether beyond what the Founding Slaveholders and Misogynists had in mind, but Slimy Sam, Long Dong Silver, and the Three Stooges will conjure arguments "proving" that everything is constitutional. What a disgraceful, disgusting excuse for a government, and it's getting worse with every passing day!
Your assessment of the EO regarding gender ideology is wildly off the mark. The EO was written in very clear language, using, yes, scientific understanding of biological sex (and the existence of only two.) This EO overturns one issued by Biden on HIS first day in office, an executive order that destroyed many hard-won rights of girls and women, and made a mockery of Title IX. By substituting "gender identity" for "sex," women's rights to single sex spaces, sports, prisons, and much more were tossed in the trash by Biden. This also threatens the rights of lesbians and gays. Lesbians especially have had their spaces, dating apps, etc invaded by men claiming a "woman identity." Feminists such as Kara Dansky (lifelong Democrat, one-time counsel at the ACLU) have been telling the Dems for years that this policy is insane, and would come back to bite them in the ass big time. See her book "The Reckoning," and read her Substack for more on this. There's a reason Trump's campaign ad "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you" resonated with so many people. Gender identity ideology is understood by "normies" (ie, the overwhelming majority not marinated in Judith Butler-speak) to be crazy. For the new administration, whatever else it does, to clearly state that men are male, women are female, and that it's not possible to change sex, is a positive move for women's rights, child safeguarding, and for basic sanity. The sooner we put gender woo behind us, the better.
Unfortunately, Even from your own viewpoint, you are wrong.
And unlike your attempt to you why you are wrong:
You say that his EO simply countermand another EO. But you do not say what the limits are. Where does his EO limit lie? Could he say "Russia is a friend of the United States?" could he say "Conception is the beginning of life?"
If yes then you are allowing that the Io power has virtually no limits to what it can do. But we know that is not the case by precedent.
If yes he also has the power to contradict scientific reasoning, and even Jefferson does not give the leader of America that right.
That means that even if you think you're right you must then supply a definition of EO. because nullifying an EO is not sufficient. This is because needs to be of a theory of what he can and cannot do.
Your position does not supply this on the totality of the EOs he has signed.
My theory of EOs is indeed different, but then that is because the current theory does not suffice for Trump's EOs. And it is, as I have demonstrated, a question which is of current legal standing.
Try again, try again what. Of executive orders are you proposing that cover all Trump's EOs? because in a debate you must supply evidence, and your evidence merely says " it reverses an EO." which does not work, because it does not show that he has the legal authority, because citing the Constitution and leaving it to other people to figure out which part of the Constitution gives him the right is not sufficient.
Biden issued an Executive Order on his first day that replaced “sex” with “gender identity.” If Biden had the authority to do that, Trump has the authority to reverse it. Title IX is written “on the basis of sex”, which puts Trump on solid ground here. I’m not arguing that Trump can issue EO’s on anything and everything, nor do I expect to agree with very many of them. I took issue with your characterization of the orders dedicated to uprooting the undefined and undefineable concept of “gender identity” from policy. Now, if you’re contesting the existence of only two sexes, I’ll go take a long nap and brew a few cups of coffee while I wait for you to prove the existence of a third gamete and the body designed to produce it.
Stirling: do you contend that ALL executive orders are illegal? Did Biden have the authority - not voted on by Congress - to radically redefine "sex" to include "gender identity"? That redefinition effectively destroyed Title IX, by including males in the female category. If Biden did NOT have that authority, and you contend that Trump doesn't have the authority to overturn it, then Biden's bogus redefinition will remain in effect. This is a nonsense.
You say "In an executive order entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” the word “truth” has no evidence behind it. No evidence is given for it." Quibble over the word "truth" if you will, but it remains a fact that there is no third sex. The burden of proof is on those who contend that there is, and that proof was never produced when the previous administration overturned rules and regs protecting the rights of girls and women.
Next up, you say "An executive order that has not been numbered is called “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” There is no evidence for the claim that he makes and he does not cite any. There is a great deal of evidence that the treatment is consensual and he is violating the mandate of the position to aid their patients." You are way out over your skis here. What is lacking in evidence are the claims that puberty blockers, wrong-sex hormones, and surgeries removing healthy body parts provide any benefits to young people dealing with body dysmorphia. The UK Cass Report took the deepest dive to date into the purported evidence base for these interventions, and found that base sorely lacking, to put in mildly. The WPATH "Standards of Care," when cross-examined in legal proceedings, are equally flimsy. And again: if the Biden administration could, absent Congressional action, implement Federal support for these harmful procedures, the incoming Trump administration is equally able to eliminate that support. This was something Trump campaigned on, so it's not like the electorate is getting a surprise on this score.
Just to be clear: I am not a Trump supporter, though this shouldn't need to be said. Arguments stand and fall on their own merits. You are factually wrong on the "gender" issues, which weakens whatever case you are attempting to make regarding Trump's use of Executive Orders in these specific cases. To quote Kara Dansky: women are female, men are male. It's not complicated.
Trump has achieved the ideal about which Nixon could only dream: the imperial presidency. No one will stand up to him, and the Extreme Court has declared that he is above the law (and immune from prosecution). This one-man authoritarian rule is altogether beyond what the Founding Slaveholders and Misogynists had in mind, but Slimy Sam, Long Dong Silver, and the Three Stooges will conjure arguments "proving" that everything is constitutional. What a disgraceful, disgusting excuse for a government, and it's getting worse with every passing day!
This is why the vicious cycle wins out over the virtuous cycle.
Your assessment of the EO regarding gender ideology is wildly off the mark. The EO was written in very clear language, using, yes, scientific understanding of biological sex (and the existence of only two.) This EO overturns one issued by Biden on HIS first day in office, an executive order that destroyed many hard-won rights of girls and women, and made a mockery of Title IX. By substituting "gender identity" for "sex," women's rights to single sex spaces, sports, prisons, and much more were tossed in the trash by Biden. This also threatens the rights of lesbians and gays. Lesbians especially have had their spaces, dating apps, etc invaded by men claiming a "woman identity." Feminists such as Kara Dansky (lifelong Democrat, one-time counsel at the ACLU) have been telling the Dems for years that this policy is insane, and would come back to bite them in the ass big time. See her book "The Reckoning," and read her Substack for more on this. There's a reason Trump's campaign ad "Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you" resonated with so many people. Gender identity ideology is understood by "normies" (ie, the overwhelming majority not marinated in Judith Butler-speak) to be crazy. For the new administration, whatever else it does, to clearly state that men are male, women are female, and that it's not possible to change sex, is a positive move for women's rights, child safeguarding, and for basic sanity. The sooner we put gender woo behind us, the better.
Unfortunately, Even from your own viewpoint, you are wrong.
And unlike your attempt to you why you are wrong:
You say that his EO simply countermand another EO. But you do not say what the limits are. Where does his EO limit lie? Could he say "Russia is a friend of the United States?" could he say "Conception is the beginning of life?"
If yes then you are allowing that the Io power has virtually no limits to what it can do. But we know that is not the case by precedent.
If yes he also has the power to contradict scientific reasoning, and even Jefferson does not give the leader of America that right.
That means that even if you think you're right you must then supply a definition of EO. because nullifying an EO is not sufficient. This is because needs to be of a theory of what he can and cannot do.
Your position does not supply this on the totality of the EOs he has signed.
My theory of EOs is indeed different, but then that is because the current theory does not suffice for Trump's EOs. And it is, as I have demonstrated, a question which is of current legal standing.
Try again, try again what. Of executive orders are you proposing that cover all Trump's EOs? because in a debate you must supply evidence, and your evidence merely says " it reverses an EO." which does not work, because it does not show that he has the legal authority, because citing the Constitution and leaving it to other people to figure out which part of the Constitution gives him the right is not sufficient.
Biden issued an Executive Order on his first day that replaced “sex” with “gender identity.” If Biden had the authority to do that, Trump has the authority to reverse it. Title IX is written “on the basis of sex”, which puts Trump on solid ground here. I’m not arguing that Trump can issue EO’s on anything and everything, nor do I expect to agree with very many of them. I took issue with your characterization of the orders dedicated to uprooting the undefined and undefineable concept of “gender identity” from policy. Now, if you’re contesting the existence of only two sexes, I’ll go take a long nap and brew a few cups of coffee while I wait for you to prove the existence of a third gamete and the body designed to produce it.
1. This theory does not encompass all of Trump's EOs.
2. This theory does say that " life begins at conception" is within his power.
You need to answer (1). You can say (2) but you can't get even the majority of people to agree with it.
Stirling: do you contend that ALL executive orders are illegal? Did Biden have the authority - not voted on by Congress - to radically redefine "sex" to include "gender identity"? That redefinition effectively destroyed Title IX, by including males in the female category. If Biden did NOT have that authority, and you contend that Trump doesn't have the authority to overturn it, then Biden's bogus redefinition will remain in effect. This is a nonsense.
You say "In an executive order entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” the word “truth” has no evidence behind it. No evidence is given for it." Quibble over the word "truth" if you will, but it remains a fact that there is no third sex. The burden of proof is on those who contend that there is, and that proof was never produced when the previous administration overturned rules and regs protecting the rights of girls and women.
Next up, you say "An executive order that has not been numbered is called “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” There is no evidence for the claim that he makes and he does not cite any. There is a great deal of evidence that the treatment is consensual and he is violating the mandate of the position to aid their patients." You are way out over your skis here. What is lacking in evidence are the claims that puberty blockers, wrong-sex hormones, and surgeries removing healthy body parts provide any benefits to young people dealing with body dysmorphia. The UK Cass Report took the deepest dive to date into the purported evidence base for these interventions, and found that base sorely lacking, to put in mildly. The WPATH "Standards of Care," when cross-examined in legal proceedings, are equally flimsy. And again: if the Biden administration could, absent Congressional action, implement Federal support for these harmful procedures, the incoming Trump administration is equally able to eliminate that support. This was something Trump campaigned on, so it's not like the electorate is getting a surprise on this score.
Just to be clear: I am not a Trump supporter, though this shouldn't need to be said. Arguments stand and fall on their own merits. You are factually wrong on the "gender" issues, which weakens whatever case you are attempting to make regarding Trump's use of Executive Orders in these specific cases. To quote Kara Dansky: women are female, men are male. It's not complicated.
Ask and answer,