Hacker News Reader

Comment by torcete | Hacker News Reader

So if I understand correctly, the legislature can pass a law that explicitly says "we are banning RT" instead of saying something along the lines "We are banning any media that dissiminates war propaganda"? Is there anything in the constitution that forbids legislating against particular groups, persons or institutions? It's a genuine question, I don't really know.

Regarding the judiciary deciding these kind of things. They already decide about many things that impact our lives. I can't see why this case is different.

View on HN

A law that singles out a person or group of people is called a bill of attainder, and violates the constitution. So instead, the legislature will write some criteria that they claim is generic but in fact know only applies to a single institution/company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

> Is there anything in the constitution that forbids legislating against particular groups, persons or institutions?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed" [by Congress]. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, [...]"

(A Bill of Attainder is interpreted under current SCOTUS precedent as a law that 1) specifically identified the people to be punished; 2) imposed punishment; and 3) did so without benefit of judicial trial.)

Again from a US perspective. A law may conflict with other laws or even the constitution and still be passed. The Judicial branch can rule that the law is not valid though. So if this law were to be passed in the US, RT could file a challenge to the law and ask a judge to place an injunction, or a hold on enforcement until it is resolved. Judges can grant those based on the harm, likelihood of success, or other interests involved.

> the legislature can pass a law that explicitly says ...

Yes. Laws just reflect what people think is just. People elect legislators to pass absolutely any law people want.

Except those that violate the US Constitution which is the highest law of the land.

(Yes I know that the Patriot Act violates the constitution and has been law for 20+ years, but I still claim it should be stricken down on constitutional grounds)

US Constitution is also a law. Everything I said applies to Constitution just as to any other law.

I may be mistaken but I was taught that the Constitution was unlike other US laws as it is the foundational law - i.e. the highest law in the land, superseding all other laws. Any law that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional and can be challenged on that ground so as to be stricken down as null and void. What am I missing?

That's right. It doesn't contradict my comments above.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com