4 ms·

I don't see an issue if the US Government themselves wants to not use certain companies (foreign or otherwise). The issue is when the US Government tries to te

I don't see an issue if the US Government themselves wants to not use certain companies (foreign or otherwise). The issue is when the US Government tries to tell private US Companies who and how they should do business with certain foreign companies, and forgets to provide any actual evidence for their assertions. This all could be avoided by simply publishing what Huawei is meant to have done. Otherwise it just strikes of a trade-war/protectionism but using "cyber security" as a justification.

Spooky23 7y ago
It's illegal for a government entity to just decide they don't like somebody without due process. The carnival atmosphere in Washington is bad for everyone. The Tweeter-in-chief undermines his own authority by governing in the public square. It makes any counter-party position much stronger, as they can easily manipulate the emotions of the president, and the negotiators on the ground have very little leverage within the US camp. A random ad on TV may change strategy!
- hnmonkey 7y ago
  Where in the law is it required that the government must offer due process in relation to contractual business deals with corporations? Is 'due process' even the correct term for that type of thing? You seem to be conflating the government punishing someone for crimes without due process to convict that person of said crimes.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    There are a wide variety of laws around procurement and finance that govern these actions.
    - inetknght 7y ago
      But can you cite an exact one relevant to this conversation?
- rwmj 7y ago
  The due process was Congress passing a law which allows an adjustable list to be made by the executive.
skrowl 7y ago
The Constitution is very clear that treaties are the law of the land, and every state must abide by them (including the private companies and citizens in that states). A trade ban / embargo is a form of treaty. Article VI Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests Signed in convention September 17, 1787. Ratified June 21, 1788 ... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
- craftyguy 7y ago
  > A trade ban / embargo is a form of treaty. This is not at all a treaty. Actual treaties require a 2/3rds approval of the Senate, which has not happened. It is, at best, on the level of 'executive order', which can (and, IMHO, should) be challenged in court per 'checks and balances'.
- rwmj 7y ago
  A treaty is normally considered to be an agreement ratified between two or more countries. How is the US trade ban like a treaty? I think it's more likely this derives simply from some Federal level law which is why it gets its power over states and individuals.

Spooky23 7y ago

It's illegal for a government entity to just decide they don't like somebody without due process. The carnival atmosphere in Washington is bad for everyone. The Tweeter-in-chief undermines his own authority by governing in the public square. It makes any counter-party position much stronger, as they can easily manipulate the emotions of the president, and the negotiators on the ground have very little leverage within the US camp. A random ad on TV may change strategy!

hnmonkey 7y ago
Where in the law is it required that the government must offer due process in relation to contractual business deals with corporations? Is 'due process' even the correct term for that type of thing? You seem to be conflating the government punishing someone for crimes without due process to convict that person of said crimes.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  There are a wide variety of laws around procurement and finance that govern these actions.
  - inetknght 7y ago
    But can you cite an exact one relevant to this conversation?
rwmj 7y ago
The due process was Congress passing a law which allows an adjustable list to be made by the executive.

skrowl 7y ago

The Constitution is very clear that treaties are the law of the land, and every state must abide by them (including the private companies and citizens in that states). A trade ban / embargo is a form of treaty. Article VI Debts, Supremacy, Oaths, Religious Tests Signed in convention September 17, 1787. Ratified June 21, 1788 ... This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

craftyguy 7y ago
> A trade ban / embargo is a form of treaty. This is not at all a treaty. Actual treaties require a 2/3rds approval of the Senate, which has not happened. It is, at best, on the level of 'executive order', which can (and, IMHO, should) be challenged in court per 'checks and balances'.
rwmj 7y ago
A treaty is normally considered to be an agreement ratified between two or more countries. How is the US trade ban like a treaty? I think it's more likely this derives simply from some Federal level law which is why it gets its power over states and individuals.