5 ms·

from the language of the now-signed bill/law [1]: (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 48

from the language of the now-signed bill/law [1]: (4) FOREIGN ADVERSARY COUNTRY.—The term “foreign adversary country” means a country specified in section 4872(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code. 10 USC 4872(d)(2) [2]: (2) Covered nation.—The term “covered nation” means— (A) the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea; (B) the People’s Republic of China; (C) the Russian Federation; and (D) the Islamic Republic of Iran. in other words—the law is and will continue to be express about which "foreign adversary countries" cannot operate and/or control ByteDance. [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/815/... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/4872

ETHisso2017 2y ago
Nicely written bill of attainder...
- nickburns 2y ago
  i do believe that determination would be reserved for a court of competent jurisdiction, but tight indeed.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > tight indeed Not even close. Bills of attainders named a person and suspended their rights with no right to trial. (Analogous to proscription.) The only thing this law has in common with those is it names a person, ByteDance, as an intended target of enforcement. The enforcement actions must still be done through the courts to which ByteDance retains access.
    - nickburns 2y ago
      you miss my point (i.e., i'm on your side). what i've meant to say, like you, is that only a court of competent jurisdiction can make an actual legal determination as to whether or not some challenged legislative act amounts to a so-called and therefore invalid 'bill of attainder' as prohibited by the Attainder Clause, the third of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[1]. it's merely my personal opinion that the legislative act at-issue is 'tightly' drafted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Federal_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        This is true of any legal question. That doesn’t mean third parties can’t opine on legality. This law is so far from a bill of attainder that it would be laughable for a lawyer to suggest to their client that it’s within the scope of reason.
        nickburns 2y ago
        yes. still in agreement with your opining. but a reasonable lawyer representing the interests of a challenger would be remiss not to at least submit the argument before the tribunal. even clear-loser claims should properly be reserved for any subsequent appeal. (by the way, i'm trying to figure out where we've commented past each other and i think it might be with my use of the word 'tight.' i've meant to employ 'tight' idiomatically, like as in air- or water-tight. well drafted to say it plainly. i was simply playing off the "Nicely written..." comment to which i was replying.)
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  Echoes of "Axis of Evil" from the post 9/11 era. Edit: Actually not even echoes. Just literally the "Axis of Evil"[1] redefined for 2024 geopolitics: > In 2024, Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg and his predecessor Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, have been forming new alliance of tyrants.[6][7] The same states have been recognized as a new axis of evil by several American politicians, including Christopher Cavoli,[8] Mike Johnson,[9] and Mitch McConnel.[10] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil
neuronexmachina 2y ago
I think it's worth noting that particular list wasn't introduced with the bill. It goes back to at least January 18, 2021: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/22/2021-01646/protecting-the-united-states-from-certain-unmanned-aircraft-systems https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/22/2021-01... > The term “adversary country” means the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, or, as determined by the Secretary of Commerce, any other foreign nation, foreign area, or foreign non-government entity engaging in long-term patterns or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national or economic security of the United States.
- nickburns 2y ago
  the bill/now law at-hand makes only reference to earlier (and legislatively amendable) codification, that's correct.

ETHisso2017 2y ago

Nicely written bill of attainder...

nickburns 2y ago
i do believe that determination would be reserved for a court of competent jurisdiction, but tight indeed.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > tight indeed Not even close. Bills of attainders named a person and suspended their rights with no right to trial. (Analogous to proscription.) The only thing this law has in common with those is it names a person, ByteDance, as an intended target of enforcement. The enforcement actions must still be done through the courts to which ByteDance retains access.
  - nickburns 2y ago
    you miss my point (i.e., i'm on your side). what i've meant to say, like you, is that only a court of competent jurisdiction can make an actual legal determination as to whether or not some challenged legislative act amounts to a so-called and therefore invalid 'bill of attainder' as prohibited by the Attainder Clause, the third of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[1]. it's merely my personal opinion that the legislative act at-issue is 'tightly' drafted. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Federal_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      This is true of any legal question. That doesn’t mean third parties can’t opine on legality. This law is so far from a bill of attainder that it would be laughable for a lawyer to suggest to their client that it’s within the scope of reason.
      - nickburns 2y ago
        yes. still in agreement with your opining. but a reasonable lawyer representing the interests of a challenger would be remiss not to at least submit the argument before the tribunal. even clear-loser claims should properly be reserved for any subsequent appeal. (by the way, i'm trying to figure out where we've commented past each other and i think it might be with my use of the word 'tight.' i've meant to employ 'tight' idiomatically, like as in air- or water-tight. well drafted to say it plainly. i was simply playing off the "Nicely written..." comment to which i was replying.)
AlexandrB 2y ago
Echoes of "Axis of Evil" from the post 9/11 era. Edit: Actually not even echoes. Just literally the "Axis of Evil"[1] redefined for 2024 geopolitics: > In 2024, Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg and his predecessor Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned that China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, have been forming new alliance of tyrants.[6][7] The same states have been recognized as a new axis of evil by several American politicians, including Christopher Cavoli,[8] Mike Johnson,[9] and Mitch McConnel.[10] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

neuronexmachina 2y ago

I think it's worth noting that particular list wasn't introduced with the bill. It goes back to at least January 18, 2021: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/22/2021-01646/protecting-the-united-states-from-certain-unmanned-aircraft-systems https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/22/2021-01... > The term “adversary country” means the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation, or, as determined by the Secretary of Commerce, any other foreign nation, foreign area, or foreign non-government entity engaging in long-term patterns or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national or economic security of the United States.

nickburns 2y ago
the bill/now law at-hand makes only reference to earlier (and legislatively amendable) codification, that's correct.