11 ms·
All sovereign nations reserve the right to regulate foreign goods, vessels, diplomats, currency, and peoples distinctly from their native counterparts. Apps ar
by politician 6y ago
All sovereign nations reserve the right to regulate foreign goods, vessels, diplomats, currency, and peoples distinctly from their native counterparts.
Apps are truly no different.
- mumblemumble 6y agoWhat a sovereign nation, as an abstract entity, can do, is distinct from what its executive leader can do. The only time they happen to coincide is, by definition, in the case of autocracy.
- refurb 6y agoBut in this case, the executive has the authority to ban things based on national security. And if that power isn't properly applied, the courts will intervene. What "autocracy" are you referring to?
- srtjstjsj 6y agoAn executive in conflict with the courts is an unstable government and an autocratic tending executive.
- politician 6y agoThe Executive Branch of the USA has always held the power to direct the nation’s relationships with foreign powers. If you feel that that’s autocratic, then your beef is with the folks back in 1776.
- CalChris 6y agoThe Constitution says the Senate has confirmation powers for Ambassadors (consider Weld), it has consent on treaties and Congress declares war.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoOn the contrary, if the courts are powerful protectors of rights they'll inevitably come into conflict with the executive. I'd like to see a touch fewer conflicts than American presidents tend to get into, but if I saw no conflicts I'd conclude that the courts just have no power to stop the executive from doing what he'd like.
- refurb 6y agoWhat? No. That's the point of the system. It's the checks and balances part. Or are you arguing Obama was an autocrat because his decisions were struck down by the Supreme Court? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-supreme-court-rules-against-obama-in-a-narrow-ruling-on-recess-appointments/373516/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-sup...
- azernik 6y agoGP didn't say the US is an autocracy; they said that the top-level comment implied a US autocracy. In this case, yes, the courts intervened.
- politician 6y agoI think there is a strong case to be made that WeChat is, as a practical matter, a public minister as defined in Article 2. Therefore, the executive has the right to refuse their presence in the US. All Chinese companies operate under the direction and control of the CCP; we can arrive at the conclusion that a company is a public minister if companies are people, and they act at the behest of their home government. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/32-the-conduct-of-foreign-relations.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/32-the-cond...
- thinkingemote 6y agoTo clarify the CCP control of companies: 1) The CCP has to have a representative on the board. The ccp say it's like a union rep(!) since they are communists. But they don't have a veto, just a vote like other board members. 2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size. 3) This also applies to large foreign companies not just domestic.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zepto 6y agoThey may technically not have a veto within the company, but that’s not really that relevant. 1. The CCP has advanced access to the company’s plans. 2. The representative can always say something like, “this would meet with disapproval by the party”. It’s not a formal veto, but it is an implied threat.
- derex 6y agoCan you link reports on this or the source where you obtained this information? In the US at least, the claim that “all Chinese companies are controlled government” is thrown around way too often without evidence backing it up. People seem to accept it as common sense that doesn’t need fact-checks anymore. I’m not saying you are one of them; I just wish we all verify non-obvious claims for our own benefits
- twirlock 6y agoThen why do nations have executive chiefs?
- jgowdy 6y agoAka China?! It’s called reciprocity dumb ass.
- dang 6y agoYikes, we ban accounts that post like this, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24537258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24537258, for obvious reasons. I'm not going to ban you for these because everyone has bad days and you've posted good things before. But can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and avoid the flamewar style on HN? We'd appreciate it.
- jgowdy 6y agoYou're right of course, I apologize. Bad day.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- edwinyzh 6y agoWait! I heard that the US is a "democracy country" and "believe rule of law"?
- Abhinav2000 6y agoExactly. We are in a new cold war, anybody who is naively supporting or defending chinese interests in America needs to wake up
- YarickR2 6y agoSo does ends justify means ?
- Abhinav2000 6y agoWe are not killing anyone or hurting any chinese, just making sure China does not control the world - ie hurting their top brass financially and strategically
- supernova87a 6y agoIf this is your legitimately held view (and I agree to some extent with the core idea), at least let's not be naive about it. Don't think that this was a well-reasoned decision with careful justification about the causes, potential, solutions, and impacts on US economics and society. It was a guy asking "what can we do to create some leverage over this adversary I don't like? (and was just told about yesterday)" Don't deceive yourself that this is some step in a principled fight. If it were that, we'd have slapped tariffs/embargoes and more on Russia a couple of years ago. We'd be implementing measures against Venezuela, Myanmar, North Korea, a whole host of countries doing similar or worse. I haven't heard a peep about those. It's not good when government operates on a whim. Don't deceive yourself about what principle (and person) you're getting behind.
- politician 6y agoThe powers delegated to the Executive don’t generally require a good explanation. “Principles” are handled at the ballot box.
- supernova87a 6y agoIf that's what you think, you should really learn more about government. I don't think you have a clue. Many, many powers falling under executive branch (and agencies') regulatory authority, which Congress does not go into N-th level detail about how to implement, have to go through significant public and internal review, and have good explanation. If you're unfamiliar with this, you should read: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41546.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41546.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki...
- politician 6y agoWe are talking about two different things. Legislation is different from the inherent powers delegated by the Constitution. The Executive certainly can act in many ways without explaining itself to and obtaining authorization from Congress. It seems reasonable to assume that you’re familiar with this concept, so I’ll just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.
- seanmcdirmid 6y agoSovereign nations also have the right to set rules and laws that restrict the actions of their executives. The people who govern America are subject to a lot of laws that restrict their power to channel sovereign rights, and for good reason.
- politician 6y agoAgreed.
- tanilama 6y agoIn principle, but it doesn't mean such practices can be acted out unchecked in US. Right now, all things happened according to the slated procedures, including the challenge in court. Trump and his supporters shouldn't expect otherwise, if they truly believe in rule of law.
- politician 6y agoAgreed.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]