4 ms·
Proponents of the Restrict Act, such as Mark Warner, would say it was because of lobbying. However, this overlooks the fact that there was bipartisan criticism
by Leary 3y ago
Proponents of the Restrict Act, such as Mark Warner, would say it was because of lobbying.
However, this overlooks the fact that there was bipartisan criticisms of the bill from the likes of AOC, Rand Paul, and Tucker Carlson before the lobbying. The scope of the bill was overly broad since it gave the Commerce Department too much authority to ban any app with foreign ties.
- fortuna86 3y ago[dead]
- zer8k 3y agoIt is somewhat unusual given that chevron deference is regularly abused by the EPA and ATF. We also didn't seem to mind allowing the CDC to temporarily be able to declare moratoriums. This isn't a commentary on the EPA, ATF, or CDC. It's just funny that this one case was simply a bridge too far for politicians and pundits that are more than happy to permit non-legislative organizations to create legislation at will.
- Guvante 3y agoThose things require action in hours or days not months. An app ban doesn't need to happen on that kind of timescale. If it is that important legislation can be passed on the several months timescale that takes. Our Constitution doesn't really support anything like this under the legislative so the executive is where it all lives. In theory a different government layout could allow a different setup but that isn't what we have. You get "decided by the 535 membera of Congress in two votes and Presidential confirmation" or you get an executive branch being deferred power.