The Board shall decide. Subject to the approval, not the dictates of, the Secretary. Please, spit out another few paragraphs waving your hands in the air. I especially like the one where because you can claim without proof that someone asked for the Gulf of Mexico, the order is authorized via delay, but the order need not make such an assertion. I'm sure the APA has nothing to say about that. I assume you're citing as-yet-unpublished Supreme Court decisions supporting your mere "Unitary Executive" theory of how the President gets to do what Congress said the Board can do?

You're a hack.

Yes. Spreading the information. Not deciding it. So where does the authorization come from, then? I suppose you need not worry about it if you think Youngstown is just about private property seizures.

The critical difference between those two orders is that one finds that the Board did not act in a reasonable time, creating the clear statutory source of authority for the Secretary's order. Without that, there is none, other than your hand-waving.

I can't help but think your ignorance of Youngstown Sheet & Tube is showing. Congress spoke, requiring a set of principles to be created and followed; there is simply no room in the statute and the APA for an out-of-the-blue order. You'd know this if you weren't using the wrong definition of "promulgated." I can tell you are, not only because of how decisions don't have a "form," but because there needs to be information before there can be "additional information."

Really? "The Board, subject to the approval of the Secretary, shall formulate principles, policies, and procedures to be followed with reference to both domestic and foreign geographic names" is about bylaws? And Congress, that particular Congress, needed to say so because they hadn't passed the APA to cover that?

I think I'm more than happy to lose whatever argument you imagine we're having since you seem to think it's about whether Trump issued an EO. He did, hooray for you. It's just that Congress didn't provide that effective authority.

That's what everybody loves about you here- you're always right, the first time, on subjects you have no apparent reason to know anything about. And how polite and free of epithets your comments are. And willing to accept that things you yourself can't locate might still exist.

Perhaps you might read your citation yourself, then explain how Trump's order fits in. Is one of the "principles, policies, and procedures to be followed" that they 'wait around for an EO then do what it says'?

The difference? Is it one supported in the statute? You know, that statute where they say 'go make some maps and associated data'? I wonder if the data could be place names.

The difference between the Biden Interior action and Trump's is that removal of racist place names was identified in a 5-year plan reported to Congress, as required. By statute. So in accordance with the mission assigned by Congress rather than completely unrelated to it.

You're not smart enough to tell the difference between a goose and a goose-step per.

Sure. 43 USC 31c(c)1 doesn't require anything systematic, that's why I didn't cite it. It practically begs for random EO's of whatever the guy in charge wants. They certainly have no other requirements for the federal component elsewhere in the title.

Do you think there's no potentially-relevant legislation, you ignorant fuck? I don't disagree that the "Gulf of America" is reality, but I don't think it's a stretch at all to say a mere EO that seems to displace the required "uniformity of cartographic and scientific conventions" carries no legal weight, let alone confers a 'legal name' as you say.

Was there something else to be said more directly than what you just did? Surely you're not upbraiding us for failing to move toward the usual "Disney is too woke"/"Elon is a piece of crap" or their opposites fast enough?

But what was really missing was music. Mr. Resnor added pretty much nothing to this outing. In some ways he made it worse- in one of the few scenes that maybe should make reference to an iconic earlier theme, he instead opted for something that sounded like a riff on a Zelda fairy visit. As if to exacerbate the problem, you find out while watching the credits it has inane lyrics if let play for more than 5 seconds

Ah, so the word since means "starting from and including" does it? That must be why sports announcers are always saying "the second player since X to do Y."

It is? Then why do people talk about the autopen rather than saying directly, "Joe Biden never would have pardoned X, is unaware that X was pardoned, and would not only fail to ratify the pardon given the opportunity, but would actively repudiate it."

The point is, if the power is there, the one wielding it may delegate or ratify. The Constitution says "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment" not "must personally put pen to paper." Trump has literally almost 4000 positions to fill that require his nomination- do you really think he's even going to say 4000 names aloud let alone personally read and sign the nomination paperwork?

Thanks for the lecture about stuff I know. We were actually on the subject of your typical sweaty hyperbole, namely, how you couldn't resist referring to "almost all" of a group of two.

I'm glad you think you can read, but it's not really reading if you don't comprehend the words. Flip the flash cards over when you practice, I bet there are simple definitions on the other side.

Sorry, my fault for not cutting-and-pasting. "(A)lmost every President that has preceded him since Bush 2." Since Bush 2, meaning after Bush 2, preceded him, meaning before Trump, you have Obama and Biden. So how many is "almost every" one of two?

Yes, unhinged.

Uh, how many presidents do you think "proceeded him before Bush 2" that it makes any sense to say "almost"?

That's pretty unhinged, even for you.