5 ms·

What 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 definit

What 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 ago
But 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 ago
  An executive in conflict with the courts is an unstable government and an autocratic tending executive.
  - politician 6y ago
    The 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 ago
      The Constitution says the Senate has confirmation powers for Ambassadors (consider Weld), it has consent on treaties and Congress declares war.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    On 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 ago
    What? 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 ago
  GP 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 ago
I 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 ago
  To 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 ago
    They 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 ago
      Can 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 ago
Then why do nations have executive chiefs?
jgowdy 6y ago
Aka China?! It’s called reciprocity dumb ass.
- dang 6y ago
  Yikes, 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 ago
    You're right of course, I apologize. Bad day.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
edwinyzh 6y ago
Wait! I heard that the US is a "democracy country" and "believe rule of law"?

What 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 ago

But 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 ago
An executive in conflict with the courts is an unstable government and an autocratic tending executive.
- politician 6y ago
  The 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 ago
    The Constitution says the Senate has confirmation powers for Ambassadors (consider Weld), it has consent on treaties and Congress declares war.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  On 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 ago
  What? 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 ago
GP 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 ago

I 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 ago
To 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 ago
  They 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 ago
    Can 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 ago

Then why do nations have executive chiefs?

jgowdy 6y ago

Aka China?! It’s called reciprocity dumb ass.

dang 6y ago
Yikes, 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 ago
  You're right of course, I apologize. Bad day.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

edwinyzh 6y ago

Wait! I heard that the US is a "democracy country" and "believe rule of law"?