No. It isn’t charging them with a crime, which is what a bill of attainder is for. It’s only saying they won’t be allowed to do business in the US. I’m fairly confident it is absolutely legal and constitutional, and also it isn’t unprecedented either. For example, see Huawei.
You can argue ethics all you want. It won’t stop anything, nor does it really matter in this situation. Ethics aren’t in play, because this is about power. Regardless, it’s equally ethical for the US to do this as what China does to prevent western companies operating in China.
You’re missing a very key part of it, I assume on purpose. It imposes a punishment for a crime. No one is accusing them of a crime. I don’t know where you got this idea from, but they’re wrong. They may have said it very confidently, but it’s incorrect. Doing this to “protect national security” is perfectly fine. The intent is not to punish them.
We’re going to pass a law that punishes a someone or a group, but it’s okay if we just don’t say, “they’re guilty of X.”
Somehow I don’t think the courts are going to share your interpretation. And in your own article they do not. Nowhere in the test does it state the bill must name a crime.
No. It isn’t charging them with a crime, which is what a bill of attainder is for. It’s only saying they won’t be allowed to do business in the US. I’m fairly confident it is absolutely legal and constitutional, and also it isn’t unprecedented either. For example, see Huawei.
You can argue ethics all you want. It won’t stop anything, nor does it really matter in this situation. Ethics aren’t in play, because this is about power. Regardless, it’s equally ethical for the US to do this as what China does to prevent western companies operating in China.
It imposes a punishment without trial. That’s a Bill of Attainder.
And being as ethical as China isn’t a line I want to stand on.
You’re missing a very key part of it, I assume on purpose. It imposes a punishment for a crime. No one is accusing them of a crime. I don’t know where you got this idea from, but they’re wrong. They may have said it very confidently, but it’s incorrect. Doing this to “protect national security” is perfectly fine. The intent is not to punish them.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bill_of_attainder
Oh, that makes it okay then.
We’re going to pass a law that punishes a someone or a group, but it’s okay if we just don’t say, “they’re guilty of X.”
Somehow I don’t think the courts are going to share your interpretation. And in your own article they do not. Nowhere in the test does it state the bill must name a crime.
The last bullet for determining if it’s punishment: “Was that a congressional intent for the statute to further punitive goals.”
It fails that test. It isn’t any sort if punishment. It’s for “national security”.
Oh? Could have fooled me. The anti-China statements from politicians are admissable.
If the government is allowed to hand waive anything under “national security” then it’s a short trip to the work camp for us all.