logoalt Hacker News

dralley01/17/20253 repliesview on HN

What exactly is your issue with this, as a textualist?

>[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . .

This is foreign commerce. It falls under the explicit jurisdiction of Congress.


Replies

mrcwinn01/17/2025

Well gosh, that sentence makes it seems like Congress could do anything!

However, this case is about something else. The opinion states that there is a first amendment interest, but that interest is secondary to a compelling national security interest that, in the court’s view, is valid. That may or may not be correct - but it is a subjective interpretation.

show 1 reply
Imnimo01/17/2025

Whether Congress has jurisdiction here is not at issue. The court is deciding a different question, which is whether the ban would violate the first amendment. We look at their ruling:

>We granted certiorari to decide whether the Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.

show 1 reply
johnnyanmac01/17/2025

This is about as much foreign commerce as it is me buying a Xiaomi phone.

I know there's court precedent, but corporations aren't people. It's yet another Chinese platform that Americans use to communicate with other western companies.

show 2 replies