Oh? And there are reports of this, right? By cyber security professionals? Reports you could link to?
And no. Your definition would turn the New Jersey tourist industry into a Foreign Trade. If that authorization is already in law then surely you could point it out so our esteemed politicians could just use that?
I'll save you the trouble. It isn't there. You're making this up as you go along because you like the way that sounds. But we've spent 70 years building an international trade with treaties and international courts. Even if this, somehow, isn't a beach of the 1st Amendment, 5th Amendment, and the prohibition on Bills of Attainder we still have to abide by the treaties we've signed. Treaties our Constitution affords the same level of respect as itself.
See, that's all easily findable. There's no circular logic about having the authority so you can pass a law giving yourself the authority. It's how laws are supposed to work.
Yes, it's been reported numerous times.
Yes, Congress could pass laws banning tourism by foreign nationals if they wished. The constitution is explicit that they can do literally anything they want to regulate trade with other countries, and they absolute do regularly ban and sanction foreign bad actors. It has nothing to do with laws that exist. There are numerous such sanctions already in place against China and Chinese actors, and it's an inherent right of being a sovereign nation.
You have absolutely no rights to interact or do business with foreign actors. It cannot possibly violate your rights to be prohibited from interacting with China. Every single country on the planet breaks treaties when things change to the extent doing so is required, which is irrelevant, because China routinely bans US companies for the sole purpose of protecting their own state controlled entities.
There is nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on. There is nothing remotely ambiguous here and nothing that in any way resembles a new precedent. This is entirely standard behavior.
Then where's the report?
You've sat here for three comments now, without referencing the Constitution, or the report just declaring your narrative as truth.
Oh? And there are reports of this, right? By cyber security professionals? Reports you could link to?
And no. Your definition would turn the New Jersey tourist industry into a Foreign Trade. If that authorization is already in law then surely you could point it out so our esteemed politicians could just use that?
I'll save you the trouble. It isn't there. You're making this up as you go along because you like the way that sounds. But we've spent 70 years building an international trade with treaties and international courts. Even if this, somehow, isn't a beach of the 1st Amendment, 5th Amendment, and the prohibition on Bills of Attainder we still have to abide by the treaties we've signed. Treaties our Constitution affords the same level of respect as itself.
See, that's all easily findable. There's no circular logic about having the authority so you can pass a law giving yourself the authority. It's how laws are supposed to work.
Yes, it's been reported numerous times.
Yes, Congress could pass laws banning tourism by foreign nationals if they wished. The constitution is explicit that they can do literally anything they want to regulate trade with other countries, and they absolute do regularly ban and sanction foreign bad actors. It has nothing to do with laws that exist. There are numerous such sanctions already in place against China and Chinese actors, and it's an inherent right of being a sovereign nation.
You have absolutely no rights to interact or do business with foreign actors. It cannot possibly violate your rights to be prohibited from interacting with China. Every single country on the planet breaks treaties when things change to the extent doing so is required, which is irrelevant, because China routinely bans US companies for the sole purpose of protecting their own state controlled entities.
There is nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on. There is nothing remotely ambiguous here and nothing that in any way resembles a new precedent. This is entirely standard behavior.
Then where's the report?
You've sat here for three comments now, without referencing the Constitution, or the report just declaring your narrative as truth.