3 ms·
> We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria. Even assuming that this is a good idea, this have an unnecessary
by summerlight 3y ago
> We need proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria.
Even assuming that this is a good idea, this have an unnecessary risk of being unconstitutional and getting scrapped by the justices. If you want to limit property rights in this fundamental way, that has to be based on a very strong judicial basis. That's why almost all reasonable antitrust regulation happens in a reactive way, because it has to prove that those regulated entities are actually doing something harmful.
- arrosenberg 3y agoThe constitution says nothing adverse to regulating entities that are not actively doing harm (though I disagree). Congress can write any standard they want into law if you get the right legislators in a room. Antitrust is reactive because consolidation is a slow burn and it takes a while for a critical mass of voters to feel the problem. Thats why Obama and Biden have taken completely different approaches, despite being ideologically similar.
- summerlight 3y agoRegulations have to happen in a "Necessary and Proper" way (see 8.18). The Congress is delegated with a strong legislative power, but it's not something limitless.
- arrosenberg 3y agoThat clause basically says “Congress shall have the authority to make laws that enable it to execute its powers”. It has nothing to do with what you said. Its there to prevent judicial chicanery, not encourage it.
- TheCoelacanth 3y agoPeople have rights. Trillion dollar corporations should not.