• cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      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).

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      What’s the point of stronger laws if the existing ones aren’t enforced? The stronger ones wouldn’t be enforced either.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.