Donald Trump to stop the TikTok ban

[pianopraze]

Donald Trump is reportedly expected to stop the TikTok ban

Twitter

not confirmed as of yet.

Can he even do this?

[Maxmars]

Twitter

not confirmed as of yet.

Can he even do this?

Just a plug before I go...

https://denyignorance.com/Thread-Recent-...ot-survive

This legislation appeared to be crafted for show.  It was not properly crafted to account for obvious deficits in the wording.
As usual, virtue signaling by politicians made it necessary to identify "a bad guy" to "vilify and punish"... by including that in the legislation it became a "targeted" matter...

I am kind of suspicious that this was political 'public relations'... rather than an effort to 'protect the people.'

Legislation is not supposed to be a weapon against an entity, business, or specific person... but instead a provision against behaviors which are deemed unacceptable threats against our social order.

[pianopraze]

Just a plug before I go...

https://denyignorance.com/Thread-Recent-...ot-survive

This legislation appeared to be crafted for show.  It was not properly crafted to account for obvious deficits in the wording.
As usual, virtue signaling by politicians made it necessary to identify "a bad guy" to "vilify and punish"... by including that in the legislation it became a "targeted" matter...

I am kind of suspicious that this was political 'public relations'... rather than an effort to 'protect the people.'

Legislation is not supposed to be a weapon against an entity, business, or specific person... but instead a provision against behaviors which are deemed unacceptable threats against our social order.

I think even if it gets passed it should be taken to Supreme Court. Doesn’t seem to be Constitutional to me.

[Maxmars]

As it is written, the legislation begs a Constitutional "check."

I would have thought lawyers shouldn't need to "adjudicate" to discern it's weakness, leading me to speculate that it could have been done on purpose.

These lawyers think and conduct themselves as if the Constitution itself was a 'mystical' document.  It fairly clear... until they get their hands on it.

The legislation should have been shored up by focusing on the fact that any entity operating within the market as Tik Tok does, is to be so sanctioned and cut off.

But noooo, they have to include the name "Tik Tok" within the legislation, creating a clear legal hazard... it demonstrates the authors have a form of "personal grief" with the otherwise legal business entity.  It taints everything.

I'm a legal nobody... but I dare think the whole matter was a political show... they don't really care what Tik Tok does... (which opens up a world of new questions.)