https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-signs-executive...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-signs-executive...
It sounds like a good idea to establish a uniform national policy! And the federal government can do that (although only for the very specific purposes spelled out in the Constitution). The right way to do that is to pass a law through both houses of Congress, and the president to sign it into law. Maybe the law even specifies a broad framework and authorizes the executive branch to dial in the specific details (although the court seems to be souring on that kind of thing too).
The god-king proclaiming a brand new framework governing a major new sector of the economy To Be So is.. not the normal way
The Legislative branch (Congress) not the Executive branch (White House) can preempt states.
> The order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to create an “AI Litigation Task Force” within 30 days whose "sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws" that clash with the Trump administration's vision for light-touch regulation.
The EO isn't about Federal Preemption. Trump's not creating a law to preempt states. So a question about how Federal Preemption is relevant is on point.
* Bush (41): 166
* Clinton (two terms): 364
* Bush (43; two terms): 291
* Obama (two terms): 276
* Trump (45): 220
* Biden: 162
* Trump (47; <1 year): 218
Source:
* https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...
Someone commented that (one of?) the reason that Trump is using EOs so much is probably because is not willing (or able) to actually get deals on in the legislature to pass his policies (or what passes for policy with him).
I have the power to do it. Why would I not?
Presumably EOs further the President’s goals.
It's easy to get caught in an echo chamber of like-minded individuals and assume everyone disagrees with his policies - but that is far from reality.
You might want to look up those data yourself because uh he's actually unpopular in those metrics.
Approval - 42.5% [1]. Much better than Trump's love interest Biden's 37.1% [2] but being below 50% is unpopular.
Popular Vote / Electoral Vote - 49.8%, 312. I may need to tell you this so I will. 50% is greater than 49.8%; a majority of voters (nevermind the country) did not want Trump. As before, this is better than Biden's 306 and Trump1's 304 but worse than Obama2 (332), Obama1 (365) and in general 312 (57%) is nothing to write home about.
[1]: https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil...
eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy
Has Trump IDed the alleged bad actor states?
So when states without AI data centers seek to ameliorate tax and zoning obstacles, it won’t be Federal preemption in their way, but what benefits Trump.
> Trump has framed the need for comprehensive AI regulation as both a necessity for the technology’s development and as a means of preventing leftist ideology from infiltrating generative AI – a common conservative grievance among tech leaders such as Elon Musk.
On the other hand ..... Grok and others ...
From the party of "states rights" and "small government"
[0] https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/d...
So where is this coalition that’s organized to actually make this real?
Software engineers are allergic to unionization (despite the recent id win) and 100% of capital owners (this is NOT business owner and operators I’m talking about LPs and Fund Managers) are in support of labor automation as a priority, so who will fund and lead your advocacy?
andsoitis•23h ago
Sacks argued that this domain of “interstate commerce” was “the type of economic activity that the Framers of the Constitution intended to reserve for the federal government to regulate.”
At the Oval Office signing ceremony, Sacks said, "We have 50 states running in 50 different directions. It just doesn't make sense."
mcdan•1h ago
AndrewKemendo•1h ago
TimorousBestie•1h ago
AndrewKemendo•51m ago
schmidtleonard•47m ago
I'd like to point out that the South was only a fan of States Rights exactly insofar as they let them do slavery. The millisecond it came to forcing Northern states to return escaped slaves, they suddenly weren't the same principled supporters of devolving and federating power. Funny how that works.
duskwuff•30m ago
lesuorac•9m ago
jandrewrogers•48m ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
rubyfan•27m ago
lesuorac•7m ago
The "The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies." seems like quite the federal overreach never mind the court decision.
CPLX•43m ago
They did indeed. It’s explicitly delegated to congress which declined to pass a law like this.
The EO is just obviously null and void in the face of any relevant state law.