The government absolutely has unconditional and unlimited authority to restrict enemy states from ownership of anything in the US they want to.
There is absolutely no possibility of any Constitutional issue. The government has explicit authority to handle anything they want about international commerce in the Constitution.
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?
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.
The government absolutely has unconditional and unlimited authority to restrict enemy states from ownership of anything in the US they want to.
There is absolutely no possibility of any Constitutional issue. The government has explicit authority to handle anything they want about international commerce in the Constitution.
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?
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.