Restrictions are fine, but they need to apply broadly -- this law was specifically targeted at a single US entity, owned by a foreign entity. To me, who has only coarsely read up on this due to his account being cut off because I originally signed up with a US phone number when I lived in the US; it seems as though a bunch of rich people got mad that someone else in another country was getting rich.
Keep in mind that I am just now even caring about this situation, so I'm coming in with fresh eyes and limited history. In any case...
> it is not clear to me that it’s unconstitutional to make a law that a foreign company can’t operate a certain type of business in America.
Of course they can. My only issue is that they are targeting a specific entity and punishing them for being owned by someone in another country, which seems unconstitutional. If they targeted all companies, big or small, it would be different. I may not like it, but it wouldn't be questionable.
If there is one steel monopoly and you ban being a monopoly then we can apply the same logic you have there.
To be completely fair, the “illegal part” of being a monopoly is not generally in the existence of the monopoly itself, but in the monopolistic actions the company may take. However, those actions may be a fundamental part of the function of the company, and I’d argue that country of ownership is another property that should be eligible for restriction.
Second, and _far_ more importantly, it is not clear to me that it’s unconstitutional to make a law that a foreign company can’t operate a certain type of business in America.