> on which to begin to interpret this for myself Probably a good place to start are the SCOTUS cases I mentioned, as well as nondelegation doctrine (Kennedy's

> on which to begin to interpret this for myself Probably a good place to start are the SCOTUS cases I mentioned, as well as nondelegation doctrine (Kennedy's concurrence in Clinton v. NYC is a good resource there); looking into those should be helpful. > but it still unclear to me who determines who "the relevant executive department and agency heads" are This is usually delineated by executive order beforehand, so the President, effectively. > how effectively do we expect other parties to be able to say, you ought have consulted me? Well we have the Sec. of Commerce, the relevant agency heads, the DNI, the president, and, as a last resort, a concurrent resolution from Congress (which should only require simple majorities by the way, so a lower bar than the law itself) and the courts. Still a lot of power in the executive, so I get being concerned about that, but for me this is less about the individual of the Commerce secretary themselves. > what's to stop the SoC from pulling down every open architecture project on github? They have the power to prohibit transactions with labeled entities, so they could theoretically tell Github to stop hosting all open architecture projects by a specific Chinese company for example, but not all such projects in general. > i still feel like there's no real checks here As I mentioned, there are many checks, including Congress and the courts. The real concern is when they choose not to do their job, as was the case with the PATRIOT Act. That doesn't mean they don't exist; it means they were derelict in their duty. That's what I get concerned about - apathy in the structures that are supposed to guard against abuses.