President Biden signed a bill that states if TikTok doesn't cut ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance over the next nine months to a year, it will be banned in the U.S.
In the case of antitrust law, the government has to prove its case in court because that’s the way the Sherman Act and related laws are written, not because the constitution necessarily requires it. And it’s the constitutional interpretation that matters as this is a law passed by Congress. A constitutional challenge is the only way to reverse it.
That said, TikTok is owned by a Chinese organization. So if I’m wrong and the constitution does protect corporations from forced divestment in a situation like this, it wouldn’t apply to TikTok. This is much closer to protectionist trade policy and I’m not aware of any cases where such acts were found to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, as a recent example, Huawei was banned from American markets on national security grounds (see: CFIUS) and while challenged in court, those challenges were defeated. And then there’s OFAC and the entire American sanctions regime (e.g. Russian asset seizures).
To be clear: I am not saying I support this ban one way or the other. I’m saying the belief that this will easily be struck down in court is misguided and that it’s not an obvious slam dunk.
Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.
And the Anti-Trust laws were written that way because that’s the Due Process the Constitution demands. The executive cannot just declare something punitive. That has been the standard for over 200 years.
Also, if there aren’t rights for foreigners in the US then there aren’t rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.
Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.
In what way does that invalidate it as an example?
The executive cannot just declare something punitive.
CFIUS and OFAC would beg to differ.
Also, if there aren’t rights for foreigners in the US then there aren’t rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.
Bytedance isn’t inside your borders and the constitution doesn’t protect extra-nationals. There’s a reason Guantanamo Bay still exists.
You wouldn’t be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn’t critical infrastructure.
(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.
So again. Not personal use. Also, refunding an investment is entirely different than shutting down a business.
And LMAO. If Bytedance wasn’t inside the borders then this wouldn’t matter. Saying they aren’t inside the borders is possibly the most hilarious bad faith thing I’ve seen in this entire debacle.
You wouldn’t be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn’t critical infrastructure.
I’m sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:
CFIUS requested that Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd. sell Grindr, citing national security concerns regarding a database of user’s location, messages, and HIV status, after the company acquired the gay dating app in 2018 without CFIUS review.
Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn’t count as “critical infrastructure”?
(BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).
(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.
To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.
So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.
Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.
But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.
The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.
Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It’s incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don’t trade on any US stock exchanges).
TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).
The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn’t occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it’s that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.
Oh no the government said it was for national security! That’s it folks pack it up. As everyone knows nobody has any rights once the President mentions the words National and Security together!
Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn’t apply?
Stop justifying Unconstitutional shit just because someone said the scary words.
You’re missing my point.
In the case of antitrust law, the government has to prove its case in court because that’s the way the Sherman Act and related laws are written, not because the constitution necessarily requires it. And it’s the constitutional interpretation that matters as this is a law passed by Congress. A constitutional challenge is the only way to reverse it.
That said, TikTok is owned by a Chinese organization. So if I’m wrong and the constitution does protect corporations from forced divestment in a situation like this, it wouldn’t apply to TikTok. This is much closer to protectionist trade policy and I’m not aware of any cases where such acts were found to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, as a recent example, Huawei was banned from American markets on national security grounds (see: CFIUS) and while challenged in court, those challenges were defeated. And then there’s OFAC and the entire American sanctions regime (e.g. Russian asset seizures).
To be clear: I am not saying I support this ban one way or the other. I’m saying the belief that this will easily be struck down in court is misguided and that it’s not an obvious slam dunk.
Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.
And the Anti-Trust laws were written that way because that’s the Due Process the Constitution demands. The executive cannot just declare something punitive. That has been the standard for over 200 years.
Also, if there aren’t rights for foreigners in the US then there aren’t rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.
In what way does that invalidate it as an example?
CFIUS and OFAC would beg to differ.
Bytedance isn’t inside your borders and the constitution doesn’t protect extra-nationals. There’s a reason Guantanamo Bay still exists.
You wouldn’t be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn’t critical infrastructure.
So again. Not personal use. Also, refunding an investment is entirely different than shutting down a business.
And LMAO. If Bytedance wasn’t inside the borders then this wouldn’t matter. Saying they aren’t inside the borders is possibly the most hilarious bad faith thing I’ve seen in this entire debacle.
I’m sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:
Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn’t count as “critical infrastructure”?
(BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).
LOL security risks are literally the justification for the bill. The bill even says as much:
So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.
Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.
But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.
The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.
Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It’s incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don’t trade on any US stock exchanges).
TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).
The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn’t occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it’s that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.
Oh no the government said it was for national security! That’s it folks pack it up. As everyone knows nobody has any rights once the President mentions the words National and Security together!
Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn’t apply?
Stop justifying Unconstitutional shit just because someone said the scary words.
Ahhh my bad. I noticed you seemed to fail at reading comprehension earlier but I didn’t realize it was a chronic condition. Carry on!