2 ms·

The Bill of Attainder is something completely different. a _Bill_ of Attainder is an illegal piece of legislation that targets a specific individual. For exampl

The Bill of Attainder is something completely different. a _Bill_ of Attainder is an illegal piece of legislation that targets a specific individual. For example, a law that says "It's illegal to be Bill Bryson" is an Bill of attainder, and is forbidden by the constitution. That does not apply on a number of levels. 1) this ban is an act of the executive, not the legislature. It is not a bill. 2) this ban does not declare tik tok illegal (It's not clear what it even means for a product to be against the law). 3) The department of Commerce has a long history of... regulating commerce. It's what it does. If this kind of trade regulation was indeed unconstitutional, someone would have noticed by now.

freeone3000 6y ago
The executive powers do not come from nothing; the legislature has delegated certain of its powers to the executive branch. In order to be banned from being imported, in the form of downloads, TikTok would have to be a threat to national security (the government said how yet, but they don't have to until trial) or involved in terrorism (the government has not argued this). They have to make a reasonable case as to how this is not simply banning speech they do not like. It's also not clear whether a download is actually an importation, or whether the Department of Commerce has any bearing on a US company (Google) manufacturing new copies of a product based on a foreign design. (The Huawei case is far from decided!) As for your third point: Someone did notice, and filed a lawsuit in federal court! This is an article about the ongoings about that case.