Asklemmy

43833 readers

856 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

204

What is the functional difference between the President having immunity for “official acts” and the powers granted to the German President under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution? (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 months ago by BmeBenji@lemm.ee to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

For reference: Article 48 Wikipedia I’m trying to understand how anyone with any knowledge of the history of dictators could possibly justify granting a president unchecked “official” power so if anyone has any actual theories I am ALL ears.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 67 points 4 months ago (1 children)

As a German, well, I don't understand enough about the US side of things to answer to this, but I do always get spooked when I see nations pulling shit like that.

And, by the way, I do hope the USA finally get 9/11 under wraps this year: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/09/07/notice-on-the-continuation-of-the-national-emergency-with-respect-to-certain-terrorist-attacks-3/

[–] 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de 65 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Wait, 9/11 is still considered an ongoing national emergency? Lmfao

[–] stembolts@programming.dev 72 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Random guess, it grants some sort of overreaching privilege to some agencies and they are clinging onto that overreaching power?

Anyone got a real answer?

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 months ago

So, national emergencies can do some of that, but this one has more to do with financing of programs, and the legal basis for financial sanctions relating to fighting terrorism. It also allows for more flexible hiring of military officers and for there to be more generals than usual.

The actual things being changed by the emergency declaration is listed in the order.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13224

It's basically "we don't need to ask Congress when the Treasury department tells a bank they can't send money to specific overseas accounts".

[–] mononomi@feddit.nl 11 points 4 months ago

Guantanamo bay is still a thing so my guess is that?