5 ms·

U.S. Code Chapter 35 – International Emergency Economic Powers

28 points by protomyth 7y ago

sottero 7y ago
Why does this page have advertisements? Is Cornell having trouble scraping by charging students a mere $67K tuition a year?
- neilv 7y ago
  Not just advertisements: they're leaking to a bunch of trackers the information of who is reading what parts of the law.
  - wishinghorse 7y ago
    That sounds relatively dystopian. Such is life with the current business model of the internet, I suppose.
- tracker1 7y ago
  The link to Advertise Here[1] at the bottom of the page does reveal a little bit of what it's for. > The LII offers a variety of sponsorship opportunities to individuals and organizations interested in supporting our efforts to publish online legal collections, the widely-read, objective case previews and timely decisions delivered in our LII Supreme Court Bulletin, our applied research in legal information and online publishing, and our efforts to grow understanding of law through innovative methods like crowd-sourced legal analysis. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/help_out/sponsor https://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/help_out/sponsor
Merrill 7y ago
I didn't see language which would give the President the claimed authority to order US companies to depart China.
- chronotis 7y ago
  IANAL, but the closest I could see (with a friendly interpretation) would be: investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; So, a factory in China is the "property in which any foreign country...has any interest", and the President could block any transactions involving that property.
  - Merrill 7y ago
    So the effect would be that the US companies would have to abandon their investments in China? I guess this could be offset by US seizure of Chinese investments in the US. But US investments in China are much greater, so it seems like trading a knight to capture a pawn.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      But, wouldn't it also cut China off from the international banking system?
- lurquer 7y ago
  50 USC 1702(a)(1)(A) explicitly authorizes the President (under the appropriate circumstances) to "prohibit", among other things, any transactions in foreign exchange with a particular country. If a US person is doing business in said country (necessarily using that countries' banking system) it would be a violation. The conditions that would authorize the imposition of penalties have not been triggered. Yet.

28 points by protomyth 7y ago

Why does this page have advertisements? Is Cornell having trouble scraping by charging students a mere $67K tuition a year?

neilv 7y ago
Not just advertisements: they're leaking to a bunch of trackers the information of who is reading what parts of the law.
- wishinghorse 7y ago
  That sounds relatively dystopian. Such is life with the current business model of the internet, I suppose.
tracker1 7y ago
The link to Advertise Here[1] at the bottom of the page does reveal a little bit of what it's for. > The LII offers a variety of sponsorship opportunities to individuals and organizations interested in supporting our efforts to publish online legal collections, the widely-read, objective case previews and timely decisions delivered in our LII Supreme Court Bulletin, our applied research in legal information and online publishing, and our efforts to grow understanding of law through innovative methods like crowd-sourced legal analysis. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/help_out/sponsor https://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/help_out/sponsor

Merrill 7y ago

I didn't see language which would give the President the claimed authority to order US companies to depart China.

chronotis 7y ago
IANAL, but the closest I could see (with a friendly interpretation) would be: investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; So, a factory in China is the "property in which any foreign country...has any interest", and the President could block any transactions involving that property.
- Merrill 7y ago
  So the effect would be that the US companies would have to abandon their investments in China? I guess this could be offset by US seizure of Chinese investments in the US. But US investments in China are much greater, so it seems like trading a knight to capture a pawn.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    But, wouldn't it also cut China off from the international banking system?
lurquer 7y ago
50 USC 1702(a)(1)(A) explicitly authorizes the President (under the appropriate circumstances) to "prohibit", among other things, any transactions in foreign exchange with a particular country. If a US person is doing business in said country (necessarily using that countries' banking system) it would be a violation. The conditions that would authorize the imposition of penalties have not been triggered. Yet.