11-13-2024, 02:09 PM
This post was last modified 11-13-2024, 02:13 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: spelling
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.)
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.)
