What a sovereign nation, as an abstract entity, can do, is distinct from what its executive leader can do.

The only time they happen to coincide is, by definition, in the case of autocracy.

I think there is a strong case to be made that WeChat is, as a practical matter, a public minister as defined in Article 2. Therefore, the executive has the right to refuse their presence in the US.

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...

There absolutely is a case. I was not meaning to imply that there wasn't. I was meaning specifically to address the idea that the rights of a sovereign nation can be invoked to decide whether any particular action legal under the laws of the United States.

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.

Agreed completely, so I don’t think the judicial review here is unnecessary or unwarranted.

To clarify the CCP control of companies:

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.

> 2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size.

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...

They may technically not have a veto within the company, but that’s not really that relevant.

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.

Can you link reports on this or the source where you obtained this information?

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

You actually think that the largest communication app in China isn't under complete control of the CCP and that they don't have complete access to every transaction that flows through Wechat servers?

This seems like a ‘citation needed’ kind of dismissal.

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.

Since people don’t seem to think this is obvious - the board has access to the company’s plans, therefore so does the CCP if there is a CCP board member.

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.

Same thing as a political officer. They don't officially have a veto, but if you cross them, you'll find yourself promoted to permanent deputy assistant undersecretary at the branch office in Nyingchi.

Wait! I heard that the US is a "democracy country" and "believe rule of law"?

Aka China?! It’s called reciprocity dumb ass.

Yikes, we ban accounts that post like this, and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24537258, for obvious reasons.

I'm not going to ban you for these because everyone has bad days and you've posted good things before. But can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and avoid the flamewar style on HN? We'd appreciate it.

You're right of course, I apologize. Bad day.

But in this case, the executive has the authority to ban things based on national security.

And if that power isn't properly applied, the courts will intervene.

What "autocracy" are you referring to?

GP didn't say the US is an autocracy; they said that the top-level comment implied a US autocracy. In this case, yes, the courts intervened.

An executive in conflict with the courts is an unstable government and an autocratic tending executive.

What? No. That's the point of the system. It's the checks and balances part.

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...

On the contrary, if the courts are powerful protectors of rights they'll inevitably come into conflict with the executive. I'd like to see a touch fewer conflicts than American presidents tend to get into, but if I saw no conflicts I'd conclude that the courts just have no power to stop the executive from doing what he'd like.

The Executive Branch of the USA has always held the power to direct the nation’s relationships with foreign powers.

If you feel that that’s autocratic, then your beef is with the folks back in 1776.

The Constitution says the Senate has confirmation powers for Ambassadors (consider Weld), it has consent on treaties and Congress declares war.

Sovereign nations also have the right to set rules and laws that restrict the actions of their executives. The people who govern America are subject to a lot of laws that restrict their power to channel sovereign rights, and for good reason.

Agreed.

If this is your legitimately held view (and I agree to some extent with the core idea), at least let's not be naive about it.

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.

The powers delegated to the Executive don’t generally require a good explanation. “Principles” are handled at the ballot box.

If that's what you think, you should really learn more about government. I don't think you have a clue.

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...

We are talking about two different things. Legislation is different from the inherent powers delegated by the Constitution. The Executive certainly can act in many ways without explaining itself to and obtaining authorization from Congress.

It seems reasonable to assume that you’re familiar with this concept, so I’ll just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

Executive agencies have to obey the Administrative Procedures Act which is not a high bar and yet the current administration doesn't always manage to clear it; it has had several policies turned back by SCOTUS for not being able to come up with a facially valid reason.

Sure, the executive has constitutional powers, but the powers used in this WeChat ban come from the National Emergency act and the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, not the constitution. So I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that you’re talking about constitutional powers, which are not at issue here. Powers created by legislation are constrained by the statutes themselves and Administrative Procedure Act requirements.

They often do. Trumps own supreme court ruled that this year.

“ 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. ”

And that was just because the Trump administration didn't manage to satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, which just requires the executive to provide a reason.

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.

Implementing restrictions on trade and financial transactions with Venezuela and North Korea? What a novel idea.

In principle, but it doesn't mean such practices can be acted out unchecked in US.

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.

Agreed.

Exactly. We are in a new cold war, anybody who is naively supporting or defending chinese interests in America needs to wake up

So does ends justify means ?

We are not killing anyone or hurting any chinese, just making sure China does not control the world - ie hurting their top brass financially and strategically