4 ms·
Yes. The US constitution, Article 1 section 8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section
by lambda 12y ago
Yes. The US constitution, Article 1 section 8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 states:
"The Congress shall have power...
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..."
Congress has passed such laws, authorizing the President to impose economic sanctions banning trade with countries which pose "any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat." (50 U.S. Code § 1701, 1702, and so on http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1701 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1701).
The President recently used these powers to restrict trade with certain entities in Russia, to put pressure on Russia to stop providing support for separatists in the Ukraine: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/ukraine_eo3.pdf http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/D...
So, it's not quite "just like that". The President must declare a state of national emergency (which he did in Executive Order 13660 in March http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/ukraine_eo.pdf http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/D..., expanded in EO 13661 http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/ukraine_eo2.pdf http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/D..., and expanded further in EO 13662 linked above), and can only impose sanctions directly related to that national emergency.
Ukraine is a country which agreed to disarm itself of nuclear arms when it split apart from the USSR, in exchange for an agreement that nuclear armed nations like the US, Russian Federation, and others would respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine and not use force against the Ukraine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security... The invasion of Russian and annexations of Crimea is a direct violation of this agreement, and a very worrying trend for nuclear non-proliferation. Russia's further involvement invading the east of Ukraine (under the guise of simply supporting an "organic" separatist movement) is further seriously troubling.
Hope that helps explain the situation. The President cannot simply order any private company to suspend working with other companies, but can if he declares a national emergency and the sanctions are directly related to that national emergency.
- sleep-less 12y agoIMHO if your only/main source of news is the western media, you get a very one sided, anti-Russian point of view. Things are really not that black and white, they almost never are in the global politics.
- matthewmacleod 12y agoHmm. Is there actually any doubt that Russia is tacitly providing support to Novorossiya?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dfkf 12y agoThere actually is, if by Russia you mean Russian government. Support to "Novorossiya" simply can't achieve anything, perhaps only help it last a little bit longer. When Russia wanted to change the status quo it had legal excuses and it acted openly and forcibly. Half-measures take you nowhere.
- lambda 12y agoI have read both Western and Russian sources on the conflict. Let's just say that I find the Western sources on the matter much, much more trustworthy. It's very clear that Russia is running a propaganda campaign, which is apparently reasonably effective within Russia but less convincing when you have access to other sources of information. The Russian propaganda campaign was even fairly effective at spreading the rumor on Western social media that the Ukrainian opposition movement consisted mostly of fascists, when in reality there was a fascist group that was associated with it but a relatively small percentage overall of the opposition to Yanukovych. After Russia snuck unmarked Russian soldiers into Crimea, which comes dangerously close to counting as perfidy, it was pretty clear that Russia and Russian sources could not be trusted on this matter. Now, are you trying to claim that Russia did not send troops onto Ukrainian soil to annex Crimea, and is not supporting the separatists in the east with at least arms and training? Or are you trying to claim that doing so is somehow justified, and if so, under what justification?