3 ms·

Well yes it is ok for China to block Google, they’re allowed to block anyone they want. The issue isn’t a tit-for-tat they block, we block issue, with the US a

Well yes it is ok for China to block Google, they’re allowed to block anyone they want. The issue isn’t a tit-for-tat they block, we block issue, with the US and China acting like playground children. The issue is whether or not the rule-of-law still means anything in the US. Have the executive block things pretty much arbitrarily undermines the rule-of-law. If the US wants to block Chinese companies, then pass laws in congress to do so. Don’t let your executive do an end run around your democratic process.

eru 6y ago
And, of course, people are still free to voice their disapproval with actions of their government (whether by law or by executive fiat) they don't approve of. That's independent of the rule of law being preferable to the alternative. The rule of law itself doesn't put much of a constraint on what the government can do, it just requires proper form.
tooltalk 6y ago
>> Have the executive block things pretty much arbitrarily undermines the rule-of-law ... If the US wants to block Chinese companies, then pass laws in congress to do so... That's not how the rule-of-law works. The bill of attainder doesn't allow the US gov't to punish an entity (or a group of) arbitrarily by legislating. The legislative and executive branches have already been briefed on privacy and/or security threat Tiktok poses to US. The US senate already passed a bill to ban federal employees from using Tiktok on gov't issued devices, which is exactly what the legislative is supposed to be doing without overreaching and impinging on Americans' civil liberty, and Trump in turn issued executive orders to deter national security/privacy threats from foreign entities. The judicial branch likewise appropriately exercised their power by delaying Trump's EO and challenging his authority. That's precisely how the rule-of-law is supposed to work in the US -- there is nothing novel or arbitrary here.
starfallg 6y ago
>The issue is whether or not the rule-of-law still means anything in the US. Have the executive block things pretty much arbitrarily undermines the rule-of-law. If the US wants to block Chinese companies, then pass laws in congress to do so. Don’t let your executive do an end run around your democratic process. The courts are doing exactly that, determining whether the executive has the authority to implement this. This is in fact the rule-of-law in action. This is also the reason why the rule-of-law is lacking in China, the courts rarely if ever finds against the government in constitutional matters like these. Their system was designed for the CCP to retain power.

eru 6y ago

And, of course, people are still free to voice their disapproval with actions of their government (whether by law or by executive fiat) they don't approve of. That's independent of the rule of law being preferable to the alternative. The rule of law itself doesn't put much of a constraint on what the government can do, it just requires proper form.

tooltalk 6y ago

>> Have the executive block things pretty much arbitrarily undermines the rule-of-law ... If the US wants to block Chinese companies, then pass laws in congress to do so... That's not how the rule-of-law works. The bill of attainder doesn't allow the US gov't to punish an entity (or a group of) arbitrarily by legislating. The legislative and executive branches have already been briefed on privacy and/or security threat Tiktok poses to US. The US senate already passed a bill to ban federal employees from using Tiktok on gov't issued devices, which is exactly what the legislative is supposed to be doing without overreaching and impinging on Americans' civil liberty, and Trump in turn issued executive orders to deter national security/privacy threats from foreign entities. The judicial branch likewise appropriately exercised their power by delaying Trump's EO and challenging his authority. That's precisely how the rule-of-law is supposed to work in the US -- there is nothing novel or arbitrary here.

starfallg 6y ago

>The issue is whether or not the rule-of-law still means anything in the US. Have the executive block things pretty much arbitrarily undermines the rule-of-law. If the US wants to block Chinese companies, then pass laws in congress to do so. Don’t let your executive do an end run around your democratic process. The courts are doing exactly that, determining whether the executive has the authority to implement this. This is in fact the rule-of-law in action. This is also the reason why the rule-of-law is lacking in China, the courts rarely if ever finds against the government in constitutional matters like these. Their system was designed for the CCP to retain power.