That’s why they’re having to pass this law I guess then? Because they already have the authority to do the thing they’re trying to make the law to get the authority to do?
And TikTok isn’t owned by China. It’s owned by ByteDance, a MultiNational Corp with Chinese ties. It’s not operated out of China, Tiktok is operated out of Singapore and Los Angeles.
And what exactly is the security concern of people making funny cat videos? Nobody is saying the government has to put Tiktok on government computers. So what exactly is the exposure here that trumps the first amendment and prohibition on bills of attainder in the US?
To your first point, yes, exactly. Congress mostly has to pass bills to exercise their power. For example: they have the authority to decide finances. They pass bills to (barely) get that done.
You’re not wrong but even if this was a standing authority being used in the same way as passing the budget, it would be illegal because it targets a single entity by design. The Constitution prohibits that which is why laws are written as behavior rules you have to violate and then the government proves you violated them in court. Just declaring a company or person persona non grata is something our founders specifically prohibited.
You’re thinking of laws in terms of obedience. Law is about agreed-upon structure (sometimes functional, often dysfunctional).
Enforcement is about obedience, and comes up when people don’t go along with the agreed-upon structure. When the structure is made poorly, enforcement has harmful consequences.
Examples:
food stamps (law)
no stealing (law)
preventing theft or multiple-subscription to food stamps (enforcement)
the wilderness act (law)
suing the government for not following the wilderness act (enforcement)
Law and enforcement are closely linked, but definitely distinct.
They have the authority to create structure (pass laws) regarding foreign powers operating within the States. So they pass laws (create structure) that state the agreed-upon structure, and enable that structure to be enforced.
Except we don’t have that power. Not unless there’s a national security threat. And they might make our children more woke isn’t a national security threat.
American individuals and this company have a first amendment right. Furthermore this isn’t a ban on all foreign owned companies. This is a ban on companies with ownership that have nebulous ties to certain countries. A list we can add to at any time. That is capricious and open to being abused. It’s also unconstitutional under the no Bills of Attainder rule.
Except we do have that power. There’s reasonable national security risk, and your lack of understanding of the dynamics involved doesn’t make them nebulous to others.
In any case, if you don’t like it, vote with your life choices. If it’s not that important, well… …it’s not that important.
You know nobody has yet to actually say what the risk is. Just that China is evil and therefore a risk. There’s some overblown stuff about them pushing cancel culture but that’s not a national security risk.
If it’s not nebulous then tell me, how are they getting our nuclear codes with a social media app they don’t directly control?
And again. No. We have rights in the US. Unless you guys go giving them away because you’re afraid you might see a Chinese video.
Passing laws is how they regulate international commerce. Or one way. Treaties are another. Executive orders are another. Actions of regulatory bodies within frameworks established by prior legislation is another.
Congress passing legislation to stop hostile foreign ownership of a US business that’s doing harm is well within their authority.
A. Doing what harm? People just throw this around and there’s been no evidence except, “lol it’s a social media company”.
B. It’s not within their authority unless there’s a specific national security problem. So what about TikTok is going to breach national security? Are they stealing military secrets? (They were already banned from government devices along with other social media apps so the answer is no. They’re not.)
The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government just pointing at us and declaring us criminals. Today it’s TikTok tomorrow it’s you.
A. It’s malware that does an obscene amount of spying, even compared to other social media. Forcing the sale isn’t good enough. It should have been outright banned.
B. That’s incorrect. Their authority over foreign trade is unconditional and absolute. There are absolutely zero restrictions on what they can do to restrict foreign trade. Non-US companies have literally zero constitutional rights. They can ban all trade with any foreign person or business who has any commercial interaction with China if they wish. The Constitution places absolutely zero restrictions on their authority to restrict international trade.
No, the slippery slope does not exist, ignoring that that’s a stupid fallacy for a reason. I am not an enemy state. I am a US citizen. I have Constitutional rights. TikTok doesn’t, and for very good reason.
Oh now it’s malware? Funny, I haven’t seen it on any warning lists. Google hasn’t thrown it’s shield up and made me click the naughty button. Is there any reputable source saying it’s malware? Or are you just hoping I wasn’t tech literate?
International trade is literal trade, not just any foreigner offering a service. Foreign companies operating inside the US have the same rights you or I or Hobby Lobby have. Anything less runs into the same problems with restricting the Rights of non citizen individuals, namely that citizens inevitably lose those rights too. As long as they’re here they have the same rights.
Yes, they’ve been caught abusing multiple exploits.
Foreign trade is literally anything involving any person from any country that’s not the US, any corporation that isn’t based in the US, and anything involving any US citizen crossing the borders of the US and bringing anything back. The government has unconditional and unlimited authority to regulate and restrict all of it for any reason. There are absolutely zero limitations. The government can completely bar any foreign ownership of any US asset and any corporation that isn’t registered exclusively in the US from doing any business at all with anyone within the borders of the US. It cannot possibly be a Constitutional issue.
Oh? And there are reports of this, right? By cyber security professionals? Reports you could link to?
And no. Your definition would turn the New Jersey tourist industry into a Foreign Trade. If that authorization is already in law then surely you could point it out so our esteemed politicians could just use that?
I’ll save you the trouble. It isn’t there. You’re making this up as you go along because you like the way that sounds. But we’ve spent 70 years building an international trade with treaties and international courts. Even if this, somehow, isn’t a beach of the 1st Amendment, 5th Amendment, and the prohibition on Bills of Attainder we still have to abide by the treaties we’ve signed. Treaties our Constitution affords the same level of respect as itself.
See, that’s all easily findable. There’s no circular logic about having the authority so you can pass a law giving yourself the authority. It’s how laws are supposed to work.
Yes, Congress could pass laws banning tourism by foreign nationals if they wished. The constitution is explicit that they can do literally anything they want to regulate trade with other countries, and they absolute do regularly ban and sanction foreign bad actors. It has nothing to do with laws that exist. There are numerous such sanctions already in place against China and Chinese actors, and it’s an inherent right of being a sovereign nation.
You have absolutely no rights to interact or do business with foreign actors. It cannot possibly violate your rights to be prohibited from interacting with China. Every single country on the planet breaks treaties when things change to the extent doing so is required, which is irrelevant, because China routinely bans US companies for the sole purpose of protecting their own state controlled entities.
There is nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on. There is nothing remotely ambiguous here and nothing that in any way resembles a new precedent. This is entirely standard behavior.
That’s why they’re having to pass this law I guess then? Because they already have the authority to do the thing they’re trying to make the law to get the authority to do?
And TikTok isn’t owned by China. It’s owned by ByteDance, a MultiNational Corp with Chinese ties. It’s not operated out of China, Tiktok is operated out of Singapore and Los Angeles.
And what exactly is the security concern of people making funny cat videos? Nobody is saying the government has to put Tiktok on government computers. So what exactly is the exposure here that trumps the first amendment and prohibition on bills of attainder in the US?
To your first point, yes, exactly. Congress mostly has to pass bills to exercise their power. For example: they have the authority to decide finances. They pass bills to (barely) get that done.
You’re not wrong but even if this was a standing authority being used in the same way as passing the budget, it would be illegal because it targets a single entity by design. The Constitution prohibits that which is why laws are written as behavior rules you have to violate and then the government proves you violated them in court. Just declaring a company or person persona non grata is something our founders specifically prohibited.
You’re thinking of laws in terms of obedience. Law is about agreed-upon structure (sometimes functional, often dysfunctional).
Enforcement is about obedience, and comes up when people don’t go along with the agreed-upon structure. When the structure is made poorly, enforcement has harmful consequences.
Examples:
Law and enforcement are closely linked, but definitely distinct.
They have the authority to create structure (pass laws) regarding foreign powers operating within the States. So they pass laws (create structure) that state the agreed-upon structure, and enable that structure to be enforced.
Except we don’t have that power. Not unless there’s a national security threat. And they might make our children more woke isn’t a national security threat.
American individuals and this company have a first amendment right. Furthermore this isn’t a ban on all foreign owned companies. This is a ban on companies with ownership that have nebulous ties to certain countries. A list we can add to at any time. That is capricious and open to being abused. It’s also unconstitutional under the no Bills of Attainder rule.
Except we do have that power. There’s reasonable national security risk, and your lack of understanding of the dynamics involved doesn’t make them nebulous to others.
In any case, if you don’t like it, vote with your life choices. If it’s not that important, well… …it’s not that important.
You know nobody has yet to actually say what the risk is. Just that China is evil and therefore a risk. There’s some overblown stuff about them pushing cancel culture but that’s not a national security risk.
If it’s not nebulous then tell me, how are they getting our nuclear codes with a social media app they don’t directly control?
And again. No. We have rights in the US. Unless you guys go giving them away because you’re afraid you might see a Chinese video.
Passing laws is how they regulate international commerce. Or one way. Treaties are another. Executive orders are another. Actions of regulatory bodies within frameworks established by prior legislation is another.
Congress passing legislation to stop hostile foreign ownership of a US business that’s doing harm is well within their authority.
A. Doing what harm? People just throw this around and there’s been no evidence except, “lol it’s a social media company”.
B. It’s not within their authority unless there’s a specific national security problem. So what about TikTok is going to breach national security? Are they stealing military secrets? (They were already banned from government devices along with other social media apps so the answer is no. They’re not.)
The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government just pointing at us and declaring us criminals. Today it’s TikTok tomorrow it’s you.
A. It’s malware that does an obscene amount of spying, even compared to other social media. Forcing the sale isn’t good enough. It should have been outright banned.
B. That’s incorrect. Their authority over foreign trade is unconditional and absolute. There are absolutely zero restrictions on what they can do to restrict foreign trade. Non-US companies have literally zero constitutional rights. They can ban all trade with any foreign person or business who has any commercial interaction with China if they wish. The Constitution places absolutely zero restrictions on their authority to restrict international trade.
No, the slippery slope does not exist, ignoring that that’s a stupid fallacy for a reason. I am not an enemy state. I am a US citizen. I have Constitutional rights. TikTok doesn’t, and for very good reason.
Oh now it’s malware? Funny, I haven’t seen it on any warning lists. Google hasn’t thrown it’s shield up and made me click the naughty button. Is there any reputable source saying it’s malware? Or are you just hoping I wasn’t tech literate?
International trade is literal trade, not just any foreigner offering a service. Foreign companies operating inside the US have the same rights you or I or Hobby Lobby have. Anything less runs into the same problems with restricting the Rights of non citizen individuals, namely that citizens inevitably lose those rights too. As long as they’re here they have the same rights.
Yes, they’ve been caught abusing multiple exploits.
Foreign trade is literally anything involving any person from any country that’s not the US, any corporation that isn’t based in the US, and anything involving any US citizen crossing the borders of the US and bringing anything back. The government has unconditional and unlimited authority to regulate and restrict all of it for any reason. There are absolutely zero limitations. The government can completely bar any foreign ownership of any US asset and any corporation that isn’t registered exclusively in the US from doing any business at all with anyone within the borders of the US. It cannot possibly be a Constitutional issue.
Oh? And there are reports of this, right? By cyber security professionals? Reports you could link to?
And no. Your definition would turn the New Jersey tourist industry into a Foreign Trade. If that authorization is already in law then surely you could point it out so our esteemed politicians could just use that?
I’ll save you the trouble. It isn’t there. You’re making this up as you go along because you like the way that sounds. But we’ve spent 70 years building an international trade with treaties and international courts. Even if this, somehow, isn’t a beach of the 1st Amendment, 5th Amendment, and the prohibition on Bills of Attainder we still have to abide by the treaties we’ve signed. Treaties our Constitution affords the same level of respect as itself.
See, that’s all easily findable. There’s no circular logic about having the authority so you can pass a law giving yourself the authority. It’s how laws are supposed to work.
Yes, it’s been reported numerous times.
Yes, Congress could pass laws banning tourism by foreign nationals if they wished. The constitution is explicit that they can do literally anything they want to regulate trade with other countries, and they absolute do regularly ban and sanction foreign bad actors. It has nothing to do with laws that exist. There are numerous such sanctions already in place against China and Chinese actors, and it’s an inherent right of being a sovereign nation.
You have absolutely no rights to interact or do business with foreign actors. It cannot possibly violate your rights to be prohibited from interacting with China. Every single country on the planet breaks treaties when things change to the extent doing so is required, which is irrelevant, because China routinely bans US companies for the sole purpose of protecting their own state controlled entities.
There is nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on. There is nothing remotely ambiguous here and nothing that in any way resembles a new precedent. This is entirely standard behavior.
Then where’s the report?
You’ve sat here for three comments now, without referencing the Constitution, or the report just declaring your narrative as truth.