4 ms·

Nicely written bill of attainder...

by ETHisso2017 2y ago

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

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