All sovereign nations reserve the right to regulate foreign goods, vessels, diplomats, currency, and peoples distinctly from their native counterparts.
Apps are truly no different.
Apps are truly no different.
The only time they happen to coincide is, by definition, in the case of autocracy.
And if that power isn't properly applied, the courts will intervene.
What "autocracy" are you referring to?
If you feel that that’s autocratic, then your beef is with the folks back in 1776.
Or are you arguing Obama was an autocrat because his decisions were struck down by the Supreme Court?
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-sup...
All Chinese companies operate under the direction and control of the CCP; we can arrive at the conclusion that a company is a public minister if companies are people, and they act at the behest of their home government.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/32-the-cond...
1) The CCP has to have a representative on the board. The ccp say it's like a union rep(!) since they are communists. But they don't have a veto, just a vote like other board members.
2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size.
3) This also applies to large foreign companies not just domestic.
1. The CCP has advanced access to the company’s plans.
2. The representative can always say something like, “this would meet with disapproval by the party”.
It’s not a formal veto, but it is an implied threat.
In the US at least, the claim that “all Chinese companies are controlled government” is thrown around way too often without evidence backing it up. People seem to accept it as common sense that doesn’t need fact-checks anymore. I’m not saying you are one of them; I just wish we all verify non-obvious claims for our own benefits
These are obvious consequences of being required to have a CCP board member.
The government having a board member is by definition a form of government control.
These are not ‘non-obvious’ claims and as such they don’t need citations.
If you want to argue that somehow these conclusions aren’t reasonable, by all means do so. But no citation is needed.
Board members have access to the CEO and other managers, therefore the CCP board member can obviously make statements to management about what the CCP does and does not approve of.
No citation is needed to know that these are the consequences of having a CCP board member.
That may not be the case for much longer:
"According to the new provisions, private firms will need a certain amount of CCP registered employees, which is already a long-term practise in large private firms but not smaller ones."
https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-tak...
As long as the USA remains a country that is bound by rule of law rather than rule of dictate, one can't reasonably argue with due process simply by invoking the fact that the USA is a sovereign nation, because the US government is comprised of more than just its executive leadership. The executive branch is bound by laws as drafted by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch.
Don't think that this was a well-reasoned decision with careful justification about the causes, potential, solutions, and impacts on US economics and society. It was a guy asking "what can we do to create some leverage over this adversary I don't like? (and was just told about yesterday)"
Don't deceive yourself that this is some step in a principled fight. If it were that, we'd have slapped tariffs/embargoes and more on Russia a couple of years ago. We'd be implementing measures against Venezuela, Myanmar, North Korea, a whole host of countries doing similar or worse. I haven't heard a peep about those.
It's not good when government operates on a whim. Don't deceive yourself about what principle (and person) you're getting behind.
Many, many powers falling under executive branch (and agencies') regulatory authority, which Congress does not go into N-th level detail about how to implement, have to go through significant public and internal review, and have good explanation.
If you're unfamiliar with this, you should read:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41546.pdf
https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki...
It seems reasonable to assume that you’re familiar with this concept, so I’ll just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.
“ Did Trump lawfully repeal the Obama-era order that shielded young immigrants who were brought to this country as children?
No, the court said in a 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice Roberts. He said that while the president had the legal authority to revoke the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, his administration failed to give a reasoned explanation for ending a policy that encouraged about 700,000 immigrants to register with the government to obtain work permits and avoid deportation. ”
The standard of review for free speech cases are way, way higher than the APA. The APA just means the executive can't blatantly lie about why it did enacted some regulation, and has to come up with a facially valid reason. The standard under the 1st Amendment requires a good reason.
Right now, all things happened according to the slated procedures, including the challenge in court.
Trump and his supporters shouldn't expect otherwise, if they truly believe in rule of law.