Скачать или смотреть Digital Short | Maybe We Shouldn't Say 'Execute' The Laws?

#ExecuteTheLaws #LiteralistDisaster #WordsMatter #LegalLinguistics #ConstitutionalChaos #IdiotProofTheOath #Trumpocalypse #SemanticCollapse #DeepStatePurged #DeregulationDisaster #BureaucracyExecuted #FaithfullyDestroyed #AIOverlords #LastFederalEmployee #DOGEBlade #Muskocracy #GovernanceGone #LegislativeLunacy #LawHunt #OathOfOfficeFail #ChecksAndBalanceSheet #WallStreetFeast #BurntByBureaucracy #MisinterpretationMayhem #ReadTheFinePrint #DystopianDenouement

Words matter. This is a truism so basic that even children grasp it—until, of course, they grow up and become politicians. The phrase “faithfully execute the laws” has been part of the American lexicon for centuries, meant to convey the solemn duty of the president to uphold and enforce legal statutes. But perhaps, in hindsight, asking a man like Donald Trump to execute anything was a linguistic time bomb just waiting to explode. After all, when given two possible meanings for a word—one measured and bureaucratic, the other violent and theatrical—Trump’s instincts have never veered toward nuance.

The moment he took office (again), he believed he had cracked the code of his previous failure. The deep state, the bureaucrats, the endless red tape—they were not mere obstacles to overcome, but enemies to execute. Why waste time “enforcing” laws when he could simply eliminate them? Why bother with courts and agencies when he had a metaphorical sword to swing? In Trump’s mind, execution was not about carrying out policy—it was about carving it up until there was nothing left but a free-for-all, where the strong (and the rich) reigned supreme. The laws themselves, he reasoned, had become the enemy.

And so, like a medieval king with a Twitter account, he set about his purge. The IRS? Axed. The EPA? Burned to the ground. The SEC? Left to the wolves of Wall Street. It was a campaign of annihilation justified under the most absurd of legal pretexts—one that, horrifyingly, technically followed the words of his oath, just not the meaning behind them. He had, in his mind, been faithful in his execution of the laws. He had executed them thoroughly, without hesitation, without mercy, and certainly without reading the fine print.

This, of course, raises a troubling question: should we have seen this coming? After all, the same Constitution that demands the “faithful execution” of laws was written by men who debated punctuation as if it were a matter of life and death. They understood that words, when left open to interpretation, could be twisted into weapons. And yet, somehow, they failed to consider the possibility that an idiot king might one day take the phrase literally and go on a linguistic murder spree. Perhaps it was naive to assume that future leaders would grasp the spirit of the law rather than simply take it at face value.

Which brings us to a simple but necessary proposal: maybe it’s time to rephrase this whole “execute” thing. Something softer, something idiot-proof. “Uphold and carry out the laws” has a nice ring to it. “Implement the laws responsibly” is clear enough. Even “Do your damn job” would be a marked improvement. Because if we’ve learned anything from this catastrophe, it’s that legal language should never leave room for interpretation when there are men in power who don’t know what words mean.

And so, as the last federal employee clocks out for the final time, as the last law is deleted from the books, and as the AI that now governs us hums along without a care, one thing is certain: the words we choose shape the world we live in. And when the wrong person is listening, a single misread phrase can unravel an entire nation.