I'm all for transit but congestion pricing never sat right with me. It's as regressive of a tax as a regressive tax can get. Ends don't justify means.
And it comes off like throwing in the towel on making transit attractive enough to draw people away from driving, as if the only possible way to do so is to financially beat them into submission. I don't see that resulting in good public support for transit, stuffing it full of unwilling people who resent being herded there. On the other hand, if you make the transit good enough on its own merit, people will switch without a metaphorical cattle prod behind them. Carrot vs stick.
I don't think it's quite correct to call it a regressive tax. Driving a car in Manhattan is a luxury, so this is a tax on a luxury that subsidizes transportation that works for everyone.
Taxes on luxury goods typically aren't expected to significantly reduce their consumption, because they're purchased by price-insensitive wealthy people. But the congestion pricing seems to be deterring use, and indeed is explicitly intended to, so who are these price-sensitive people being subject to the tax?
> It unfortunately doesn't matter how good of policy it is, it's a culture-war issue.
The trouble is that also means people are cherry picking results.
There was never any doubt that putting a heavy tax on something could deter use. The question is, at what cost? You now have middle income tradespeople who need a car because they have to transport their equipment paying the congestion pricing, or passing it on as higher prices to their middle income customers. It's a regressive tax.
It also deters people from commuting by car, as was the intention, but without supplying an alternative to it. So now it costs more to e.g. commute from New Jersey because you either have to pay the congestion pricing or use a less convenient means of commuting. Which in turn means it costs more to live in New Jersey relative to New York, driving up demand for New York real estate and exacerbating the high rents there.
Whereas if you would, for example, reduce car traffic in Manhattan by allowing taller buildings in the other burroughs from which Manhattan is conveniently accessible via subway line, you don't have a regressive tax and don't drive up overall rents, and maybe that's the better option to achieve the same goal.
there are still issues with the system. I took a cab from point A to point B where points A and B are both outside and above the congestion pricing zone. The taxi still tried to add a congestion pricing surcharge on my fair.
Toll lanes exist many places and would seem to violate your rule. I don't think that's the issue, and explicitly that's not the reason the administration has given for their answer.
If you're taking 'post roads' to mean the federal government has control over every single road across the US that is an insane overreach of federal power. Especially when it is specifically enumerated for the sake of delivering mail and has nothing to do with other use.
They have the power to build post roads, which have always been general purpose roads used by everyone and in modern times it means federally-funded interstate highways. But those are the roads that go from New Jersey to Manhattan.
No, it's not. It's a toll on entering the area period, whether from highway or from 60th street. You can still fully use the highway, including getting around the area in question. I'm not even from NYC and it took all of two minutes to identify how the congestion relief zone works, who it applies to and who it does not.
You can make the argument that it's unfair or a regressive tax. But that is not an argument for the federal government to make or interfere with, that is local policy. Especially not when clearly using federal overreach as a bludgeon to force them to comply.
The issue is that not only some but disproportionately many of the people being deterred from entering the area are from outside the jurisdiction, so their only representation is at the federal level.
Notice also that "entering the area" is the thing people not from the area do. If you want to be in Manhattan and you live in Manhattan you're already there.
OK, but it has to be a US highway (or Interstate) for that to work, doesn't it? If the state built the road, the federal government doesn't get to yell "establishing post roads" and suddenly start dictating the rules.
The interstate highway in Manhattan is located much further north, between George Washington bridge and Alexander Hamilton bridge. It's far away from the congestion zone.
And none of those roads exist within the congestion zone.
In fact, as long as you remain on the highways (The West Side Highway and FDR drives -- both of which are local/state roads) on the periphery of the zone, you pay no fee.
Which makes your argument completely specious since there are no Interstate highways within the confines of the congestion zone.
They go directly into the congestion zone. I-78 goes through the Holland Tunnel and drops you out in lower Manhattan. Once you're in New York, every exit is in the congestion zone until the end of the highway.
Moreover, the highway's purpose is to carry people into Manhattan. Discouraging people from using the interstate highway to go to New York is the thing to be prevented.
>They go directly into the congestion zone. I-78 goes through the Holland Tunnel and drops you out in lower Manhattan. Once you're in New York, every exit is in the congestion zone until the end of the highway.
Don't want to go into the congestion zone? Take the GW Bridge or Battery tunnel. Otherwise, pay up ya cheap bastard!
>Moreover, the highway's purpose is to carry people into Manhattan. Discouraging people from using the interstate highway to go to New York is the thing to be prevented.
Boo hoo! If NJ folks never come to Manhattan (by whatever means) it will be too many. Take the train or the bus or pay up ya cheap bastard.
> Don't want to go into the congestion zone? Take the GW Bridge or Battery tunnel.
They do want to go there. They want to use the federally-funded interstate highway to go to the place their tax dollars paid for it to go, and which they have the right as a citizen of the US to travel to, without being deterred from using it by local politicians discriminating against out-of-state people who can't vote against them.
> If NJ folks never come to Manhattan (by whatever means) it will be too many.
I feel like you're just making my point for me now.
Of course they do. And they need to respect the wishes, and more importantly, the laws and regulations within those political boundaries.
Manhattan isn't a playground for entitled jackasses like you. It's home to 1,000,000 human beings.
Do you have so little respect for your fellow Americans that you will happily pollute their homes with noxious gases, noise and the stench of automobiles?
I'd also note that you aren't making the same argument about the toll roads in New Jersey. Heck, if I use those roads I'm almost certainly not going anywhere in New Jersey. Which is distinct from a specific destination.
I find your apparent lack of self awareness and disdain for your fellow humans disgusting.
> And they need to respect the wishes, and more importantly, the laws and regulations within those political boundaries.
Those laws include the federal laws which are now being applied.
> Do you have so little respect for your fellow Americans that you will happily pollute their homes with noxious gases, noise and the stench of automobiles?
Those Manhattan residents are heating their residences with predominantly fuel oil and natural gas. If we're constraining the combustion of things they're going to be pretty cold.
I've been inside the New York City subway system; it smells strongly of brake dust and the electrical contact shoes generate a significant amount of ozone from arcing. Are we going to discontinue running those too?
Everything has costs.
And electric cars have no local exhaust emissions and significantly reduced brake dust from regenerative braking, are you proposing they be exempt from the congestion charge? That isn't currently the case.
> I'd also note that you aren't making the same argument about the toll roads in New Jersey.
No, you can see elsewhere in the thread that I am. They should get rid of all toll roads everywhere.
The argument there is different because the purpose of the toll there is strictly revenue generation rather than purposefully deterring usage, but tolls are still an inefficient and privacy invasive method of funding government programs and should not be used. Use fuel taxes (which promote more efficient vehicles and help to price carbon) or general taxes instead.
It's also not productive to make emotional appeals and personal attacks. It's politics, people get heated; make an argument, not a scene.
>So New York City doesn't get to impose tolls on a Federal highway without the federal government's agreement? That sounds... actually reasonable.
And they aren't trying to do so. Unless I'm missing something important. Please explain where, within the congestion pricing zone (From 60th street to the Battery, there are Federal highways.
There are already tolls for people who live outside of New York and commute in: the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, the Bayonne Bridge… This congestion pricing is more for people who live in other parts of New York (like the Upper West Side, or Queens) to commute to the most congested part of New York.
By your logic, the administration should have made Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel free.
There are several problems with tolls (privacy invasive, collections infrastructure eats an unreasonable proportion of the revenue, etc.) that should cause them to never be used, but the relevant one is putting a disproportionate burden on travelers from outside the jurisdiction. Tolls that only pay for road maintenance and aren't intended to deter travel might not do this (even if they're still net-negative overall), so there is a stronger case to be made that they should be allowed, but the purpose of congestion pricing is explicitly to deter travel from people who for any reason can't use mass transit, and those people are disproportionately from outside the jurisdiction. If that was their actual reason they would be doing exactly this. Though they should still get rid of the other tolls.
The streets of Manhattan are not “the rest of the US’s” streets to decide what to do with. The people voted for lower congestion, this is what the people that live there want. Correct, the exact idea is to put tolls on people who do not pay for or live on our streets.
The streets of Manhattan are not an interstate even though they are poorly regulated as an interstate under antiquated law. This should rightly fall on the people that live there.
The streets of Manhattan are within spitting distance of the state border and contain a high volume of interstate traffic. There is nothing antiquated about regarding them as what they are.
The law is not about regulating property that is “close enough” it is about regulating interstate travel. Congestion pricing does not include the roads that would charge for interstate travel, only the roads within the city. Furthermore if the Potus wants revocation power of approvals then congress should grant the Potus that power. You don’t get to just make up powers that aren’t written down. That’s why the courts will stop this stupid meaningless revocation via memo.
> The law is not about regulating property that is “close enough” it is about regulating interstate travel. Congestion pricing does not include the roads that would charge for interstate travel, only the roads within the city.
The concern is that "the roads within the city" are being used for interstate travel. People use roads in New Jersey to travel to the New Jersey / New York border and then use roads in New York to travel to their destination in New York; that's interstate travel. Their origin and destination are in different states. And in particular, their eligibility to vote is in a different state than the one imposing the fee, which is why there is a case for federal involvement.
> Furthermore if the Potus wants revocation power of approvals then congress should grant the Potus that power.
Which has already happened. There is a federal ban on tolls if you accept federal highway money (which everybody does) unless the federal government grants an exception, which they're now refusing to do.
Okay but when you’re in Nyc you’re not traveling from NJ any longer, your interstate travel completes when you hit the west side highway. Interstate travel is the period while traveling from one state to the next. NJ has it’s own tolls. Ny did not put a toll on the west side highway. So you can exit back to NJ if you do not want to pay the toll exiting the interstate roads into the streets of Manhattan.
The streets of Manhattan are not highways and are exempt from federal tolling laws. Even so, the program was already approved. The Potus does not have the power to defund federally approved programs. The basis that cp is violating laws is incorrect, it has followed them all even the laws that did not actually impact the roads that are being tolled (federal review).
> Okay but when you’re in Nyc you’re not traveling from NJ any longer, your interstate travel completes when you hit the west side highway.
Interstate travel is when someone from New Jersey goes into New York (or vice versa). They're still from New Jersey the entire time they're in New York.
> Ny did not put a toll on the west side highway. So you can exit back to NJ if you do not want to pay the toll exiting the interstate roads into the streets of Manhattan.
There is no exit from I-76 onto the west side highway. All of the exits on the New York side of the line are to streets in the congestion zone.
Moreover, the purpose of the highway is to bring people to lower Manhattan. Making the only path that isn't deterred a road that goes back out of the area would be defeating the purpose of the highway in bringing people there.
> The streets of Manhattan are not highways and are exempt from federal tolling laws.
Surrounding the highway on all sides by tolls is putting a toll on the highway.
> Even so, the program was already approved.
Approval is arguably a continuous thing, not a one-time thing.
In general things that can be done through executive action can be undone through executive action. To do otherwise would have one administration binding the next even when they've just been voted out.
> The Potus does not have the power to defund federally approved programs.
But they're not approved anymore. Congress gave it to the executive branch to do the approving.
A regressive tax like this should have no place in the Democratic agenda. Across the state, 47% of people oppose the congestion tax, while only 27% support it. Meanwhile, Manhattanites—the wealthiest group—are the most in favor, with 57% supporting it and just 32% opposed.
Unbelievable that Trump managed to steal this issue…
Driving a car in Manhattan is inherently regressive: in addition to the high cost of owning, insuring, and operating one you’re looking at a ton of money for parking in one of the densest parts of the country.
This forces an interesting dynamic: congestion pricing makes the city healthier and safer for everyone who actually lives there, speeds transit for (on average) poorer people, but it’s portrayed as regressive by the (on average) more affluent people who expect a city that they don’t live in remade for their convenience because they’ve already locked in a more expensive lifestyle.
A better approach would be to tax properties worth more than $2 million and use the revenue to improve public transit. Another option: increase income taxes on those earning over $500K a year.
But, of course, the wealthy resist any tax that actually affects them.
And Trump looked the polls found out that nearly two-thirds of New Yorkers oppose congestion pricing and now he is “hero”.
Everyone who lives in the city has been paying to subsidize suburban commuters for decades, at great expense to their health, lives, and quality of life. It seems unfair to say they should pay more in taxes so non-residents don’t have to pay for what they use.
Congestion pricing is a market-based approach for dividing a limited resource. Cars are just too inefficient for that many people to drive in a city and you need some way to reduce the ensuing negative externalities.
You have more money, so you should pay more in taxes. I know if might not sound right but it is better for all of us.
A market-based approach is not the solution to achieving equality or public transportation.
> Across the state, 47% of people oppose the congestion tax, while only 27% support it.
That's kinda a weird statistic, given how many people are nowhere near Manhattan. I live in New York State, but it's 7 hours away, so I don't have any opinion whatsoever on New York City's congestion charges. Nor should my opinion (if I had one) carry any weight.
Charging for access to roads funded by our tax dollars should not be permitted. While it is reasonable for a privately built and owned bridge to have a toll, roads constructed with federal funds, such as those in Manhattan, should be accessible to everyone without additional charges. Allowing cities to impose fees on roads we've already paid for could lead to other areas, like small communities along highways, implementing similar tolls. For instance, a community in Chicago attempted to limit access to a public road during certain hours to residents only, but to do so, they had to finance the road entirely on their own, which they did.
There is a community in Chicago where they tried to restrict access to a public road during certain hours except certain residents and to do that they had to pay for the road in it’s entirety, which they did.
> roads constructed with federal funds, such as those in Manhattan
Does this mean that you are calling for the federal government to take over road construction and maintenance in New York City? The people who want to get rid of congestion pricing don’t live or pay taxes to the city so that would be more fair in a sense.
Not at all. I'm simply stating that when you receive Federal or State grants or assistance for a portion of your road system that you have to accept the restrictions placed on that funding and the road should benefit everyone. We build roads as a country so that everyone can use them not so your local government can use them as a revenue source. It's very likely that 30%-50% of the cost of the roads was paid for with Federal $'s.
This is not any different than the idea that if you accept Federal money for research dollars, you should not turn around and charge enormous sums for access to the research. It doesn't mean that the Federal government took over your research.
By that logic, we shouldn’t have toll roads either but they’ve been necessary to pay for the enormously expensive projects demanded by users of the least efficient transportation option.
The problem here is basic math: people driving cars need an order of magnitude more space than any other transportation option, and there simply isn’t room for that in a city. Basic economics tells us that when there’s more demand than a limited supply prices should rise to encourage more efficient decision. There just isn’t an option where suburban commuters can drive into Manhattan and magically have room for all of those cars, and that’s before you even attempt to price in all of the years of quality life lost due to the direct injuries and indirect pollution from their cars. The last month has been full of reports showing that everything is better for NYC residents due to reduced congestion, so their interests need to factor into this discussion about their city, too.
Maybe unpopular opinion: Democrats should just grow a spine and say "Nah this is state issues, we're gonna keep congestion pricing, thank you very much. Come and tear down the toll booths yourself if you want to."
Nicety is dead. Playing nice only sets you up for more humiliation. It's time the Dems started playing dirty.
It's a pity some people are against the free market and the simple law of supply and demand. The fact is roads cost money, and we can't possibly fit all cars on the road, thus there needs to be some kind of a mechanism of regulation so that traffic works. I don't see why not just let the market deal with it, especially since in the US everything otherwise needs to be economical including healthcare. But somehow car drivers need to be coddled.
72 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 157 ms ] threadSome Related:
NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker https://www.congestion-pricing-tracker.com/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42616700)
43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42692730
Subway crime plummets as ridership jumps significantly in congestion pricing era https://www.amny.com/nyc-transit/nyc-subway-crime-plummets-r... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42958474)
And it comes off like throwing in the towel on making transit attractive enough to draw people away from driving, as if the only possible way to do so is to financially beat them into submission. I don't see that resulting in good public support for transit, stuffing it full of unwilling people who resent being herded there. On the other hand, if you make the transit good enough on its own merit, people will switch without a metaphorical cattle prod behind them. Carrot vs stick.
Hint: one funding source was cancelled today by the current administration.
The trouble is that also means people are cherry picking results.
There was never any doubt that putting a heavy tax on something could deter use. The question is, at what cost? You now have middle income tradespeople who need a car because they have to transport their equipment paying the congestion pricing, or passing it on as higher prices to their middle income customers. It's a regressive tax.
It also deters people from commuting by car, as was the intention, but without supplying an alternative to it. So now it costs more to e.g. commute from New Jersey because you either have to pay the congestion pricing or use a less convenient means of commuting. Which in turn means it costs more to live in New Jersey relative to New York, driving up demand for New York real estate and exacerbating the high rents there.
Whereas if you would, for example, reduce car traffic in Manhattan by allowing taller buildings in the other burroughs from which Manhattan is conveniently accessible via subway line, you don't have a regressive tax and don't drive up overall rents, and maybe that's the better option to achieve the same goal.
Are you saying the government issues exceptions for every toll lane?
You can make the argument that it's unfair or a regressive tax. But that is not an argument for the federal government to make or interfere with, that is local policy. Especially not when clearly using federal overreach as a bludgeon to force them to comply.
The issue is that not only some but disproportionately many of the people being deterred from entering the area are from outside the jurisdiction, so their only representation is at the federal level.
Notice also that "entering the area" is the thing people not from the area do. If you want to be in Manhattan and you live in Manhattan you're already there.
And even I-95 is only 6 miles away. It's hardly so far away that nobody would be coming from there.
In fact, as long as you remain on the highways (The West Side Highway and FDR drives -- both of which are local/state roads) on the periphery of the zone, you pay no fee.
Which makes your argument completely specious since there are no Interstate highways within the confines of the congestion zone.
Moreover, the highway's purpose is to carry people into Manhattan. Discouraging people from using the interstate highway to go to New York is the thing to be prevented.
Don't want to go into the congestion zone? Take the GW Bridge or Battery tunnel. Otherwise, pay up ya cheap bastard!
>Moreover, the highway's purpose is to carry people into Manhattan. Discouraging people from using the interstate highway to go to New York is the thing to be prevented.
Boo hoo! If NJ folks never come to Manhattan (by whatever means) it will be too many. Take the train or the bus or pay up ya cheap bastard.
tl;dr: Leave your car at home.
They do want to go there. They want to use the federally-funded interstate highway to go to the place their tax dollars paid for it to go, and which they have the right as a citizen of the US to travel to, without being deterred from using it by local politicians discriminating against out-of-state people who can't vote against them.
> If NJ folks never come to Manhattan (by whatever means) it will be too many.
I feel like you're just making my point for me now.
Of course they do. And they need to respect the wishes, and more importantly, the laws and regulations within those political boundaries.
Manhattan isn't a playground for entitled jackasses like you. It's home to 1,000,000 human beings.
Do you have so little respect for your fellow Americans that you will happily pollute their homes with noxious gases, noise and the stench of automobiles?
I'd also note that you aren't making the same argument about the toll roads in New Jersey. Heck, if I use those roads I'm almost certainly not going anywhere in New Jersey. Which is distinct from a specific destination.
I find your apparent lack of self awareness and disdain for your fellow humans disgusting.
Have a nice day.
Edit: Fixed typo.
Those laws include the federal laws which are now being applied.
> Do you have so little respect for your fellow Americans that you will happily pollute their homes with noxious gases, noise and the stench of automobiles?
Those Manhattan residents are heating their residences with predominantly fuel oil and natural gas. If we're constraining the combustion of things they're going to be pretty cold.
I've been inside the New York City subway system; it smells strongly of brake dust and the electrical contact shoes generate a significant amount of ozone from arcing. Are we going to discontinue running those too?
Everything has costs.
And electric cars have no local exhaust emissions and significantly reduced brake dust from regenerative braking, are you proposing they be exempt from the congestion charge? That isn't currently the case.
> I'd also note that you aren't making the same argument about the toll roads in New Jersey.
No, you can see elsewhere in the thread that I am. They should get rid of all toll roads everywhere.
The argument there is different because the purpose of the toll there is strictly revenue generation rather than purposefully deterring usage, but tolls are still an inefficient and privacy invasive method of funding government programs and should not be used. Use fuel taxes (which promote more efficient vehicles and help to price carbon) or general taxes instead.
It's also not productive to make emotional appeals and personal attacks. It's politics, people get heated; make an argument, not a scene.
And they aren't trying to do so. Unless I'm missing something important. Please explain where, within the congestion pricing zone (From 60th street to the Battery, there are Federal highways.
I'll save you the trouble: They don't exist.
By your logic, the administration should have made Lincoln Tunnel and Holland Tunnel free.
That is correct, they should do that, and eliminate all other tolls on interstate roads.
Because they cancelled congestion pricing with reasons different from yours.
The concern is that "the roads within the city" are being used for interstate travel. People use roads in New Jersey to travel to the New Jersey / New York border and then use roads in New York to travel to their destination in New York; that's interstate travel. Their origin and destination are in different states. And in particular, their eligibility to vote is in a different state than the one imposing the fee, which is why there is a case for federal involvement.
> Furthermore if the Potus wants revocation power of approvals then congress should grant the Potus that power.
Which has already happened. There is a federal ban on tolls if you accept federal highway money (which everybody does) unless the federal government grants an exception, which they're now refusing to do.
The streets of Manhattan are not highways and are exempt from federal tolling laws. Even so, the program was already approved. The Potus does not have the power to defund federally approved programs. The basis that cp is violating laws is incorrect, it has followed them all even the laws that did not actually impact the roads that are being tolled (federal review).
Interstate travel is when someone from New Jersey goes into New York (or vice versa). They're still from New Jersey the entire time they're in New York.
> Ny did not put a toll on the west side highway. So you can exit back to NJ if you do not want to pay the toll exiting the interstate roads into the streets of Manhattan.
There is no exit from I-76 onto the west side highway. All of the exits on the New York side of the line are to streets in the congestion zone.
Moreover, the purpose of the highway is to bring people to lower Manhattan. Making the only path that isn't deterred a road that goes back out of the area would be defeating the purpose of the highway in bringing people there.
> The streets of Manhattan are not highways and are exempt from federal tolling laws.
Surrounding the highway on all sides by tolls is putting a toll on the highway.
> Even so, the program was already approved.
Approval is arguably a continuous thing, not a one-time thing.
In general things that can be done through executive action can be undone through executive action. To do otherwise would have one administration binding the next even when they've just been voted out.
> The Potus does not have the power to defund federally approved programs.
But they're not approved anymore. Congress gave it to the executive branch to do the approving.
Unbelievable that Trump managed to steal this issue…
This forces an interesting dynamic: congestion pricing makes the city healthier and safer for everyone who actually lives there, speeds transit for (on average) poorer people, but it’s portrayed as regressive by the (on average) more affluent people who expect a city that they don’t live in remade for their convenience because they’ve already locked in a more expensive lifestyle.
But, of course, the wealthy resist any tax that actually affects them.
And Trump looked the polls found out that nearly two-thirds of New Yorkers oppose congestion pricing and now he is “hero”.
Congestion pricing is a market-based approach for dividing a limited resource. Cars are just too inefficient for that many people to drive in a city and you need some way to reduce the ensuing negative externalities.
So in short:
- tax the rich
- make government efficient (smaller)
That's kinda a weird statistic, given how many people are nowhere near Manhattan. I live in New York State, but it's 7 hours away, so I don't have any opinion whatsoever on New York City's congestion charges. Nor should my opinion (if I had one) carry any weight.
There is a community in Chicago where they tried to restrict access to a public road during certain hours except certain residents and to do that they had to pay for the road in it’s entirety, which they did.
Does this mean that you are calling for the federal government to take over road construction and maintenance in New York City? The people who want to get rid of congestion pricing don’t live or pay taxes to the city so that would be more fair in a sense.
This is not any different than the idea that if you accept Federal money for research dollars, you should not turn around and charge enormous sums for access to the research. It doesn't mean that the Federal government took over your research.
The problem here is basic math: people driving cars need an order of magnitude more space than any other transportation option, and there simply isn’t room for that in a city. Basic economics tells us that when there’s more demand than a limited supply prices should rise to encourage more efficient decision. There just isn’t an option where suburban commuters can drive into Manhattan and magically have room for all of those cars, and that’s before you even attempt to price in all of the years of quality life lost due to the direct injuries and indirect pollution from their cars. The last month has been full of reports showing that everything is better for NYC residents due to reduced congestion, so their interests need to factor into this discussion about their city, too.
Nicety is dead. Playing nice only sets you up for more humiliation. It's time the Dems started playing dirty.
and (in direct response to "LONG LIVE THE KING!")
> Ms. Hochul defended the congestion pricing program on Wednesday and vowed to fight the president’s move.
> “We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king,” she said in a written statement. “We’ll see you in court.”
The president is not a king.