Hacker News Reader

Comment by kennywinker | Hacker News Reader

Under what authority could he block access?

Extra Judicial punishment and unwanted attention from powerful organizations is absolutely on the table for any larger startup/company who finds themselves in his radar

Have you been paying attention the last two years? With a few exceptions, he has unilateral authority.

I guess my question was, is this a threat to do something legal or something illegal

What do you mean by illegal? It's very nuanced these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States

On July 1, 2024, the Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts.[5][6][7][8] The court declined to rule on the scope of immunity for some acts alleged of Trump in his indictment, instead vacating the appellate decision and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Whether or not it's illegal is typically determined a few months after the act in question.

Since 2024, SCOTUS has sided with Trump about 90% of the time, so most likely it's legal.

Still, even if it's later determined to be illegal, since the law presumes the president has legal immunity to all crimes committed in a presidential capacity, there's no legal risk, so the damage can be done long before the court makes it illegal. For example, Trump's global tarrifs were determined to be illegal a year after the fact, long after the damage had been done.

It's the rule based order america is the boss in. Essentially a mafia ruled country where rules are different for opponents.

"It's a big club and you aren't in it"

Because the spineless cowards in Congress are somehow afraid of an 80 year old demented man nearing a 30% approval rating.

Their inability to find a backbone helps them contort to whatever Trump babbles that day, even if privately they know something is idiotic or illegal.

If you want a prime example, look at how Thom Tillis suddenly finds the ability to speak out once he lost his primary.

ITAR and suddenly half a world cannot touch it.

Afaik ITAR only covers export. Which would mean it can only be used to block export of US models, not importing chinese open weight models.

The "try and stop me" authority of a guy that has armed goons marching down city streets and brutalizing his opposition.

The same authority he used to enact tariffs and a war.

So, illegally, got it

It has the tacit consent of Congress, so it's mostly only illegal in the way it's carried out. Congress could make most of it legal right now, but they don't want to put their names on it. Some of it would probably be unconstitutional for Congress to authorize (ironically via the nondelegation clause which is now being repurposed to justify a thoroughly unconstituational unitary executive arrangement), but much of it would not be, so it's de jure illegal but de facto legal.

You just described multiple different ways of being "illegal".

If you were to keep using a chinese model after said ban, you would need to be charged with a crime and be found guilty in a court of law for this to be true.

What it would do is have an instant chilling effect across Corporate America, which is the goal.

At a certain level legality is enforcement. If the enforcers of the rules decline to enforce them, you're better off acknowledging what is and dealing with it.

and take over Venezuela.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com