FOIA.
The Justice Department is advancing a radical theory of presidential power, nullifying Congress’s foreign affairs powers whenever the president finds them inconvenient.
These letters provide a legal rationale (if it can be called that) for the Trump administration’s commitment not to enforce the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACAA), the divestment-or-ban law that the Supreme Court upheld in January. The letters make two central claims, both of which are astonishing in their breadth and implications for executive power.
- Akamai Technologies
- Amazon
- Apple Inc.
- Digital Realty Trust, Inc.
- Fastly, Inc.
- Google, Inc.
- LG Electronics USA, Inc.
- Microsoft Corporation
- Oracle Corporation
- T-Mobile US, Inc.
Well, I mean that was proven in the prohibition era. Alcohol was illegal, and thus you could be arrested for having it.
And yet, the task force to enforce these rules was like 1 agent per every 500,000 citizens. So “super secret” speakeasies were EVERYWHERE in those days. So common that drunks would knock on random peoples doors, and home owners would instinctively yell “THIS ISN’T A SPEAKEASY!!!” and the drunk would go knock on the next door. It was said you only had to knock on 20-30 doors depending on the city, before you happened upon a secret speakeasy.
The head of the task force said New Orleans was the easiest to find alcohol, having just flown into the airport, he said it took about 30 seconds before he got into a cab, and was IMMEDIATELY offered booze.
If a law is a law, but it’s not being enforced, is it really a law?
There was a lot about this in Boardwalk Empire. I ain’t too learned but I think the creators were trying to be somewhat accurate