Fyi the "S.686 - RESTRICT Act" isn't the PATRIOT Act

posted 1 year ago by dekachin 1 year ago by dekachin +2 / -6

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/cosponsors?s=1&r=15

Text of the bill:

(B) COVERED ENTITIES.—The entities described in this subparagraph are:

(i) a foreign adversary;

(ii) an entity subject to the jurisdiction of, or organized under the laws of, a foreign adversary; and

(iii) an entity owned, directed, or controlled by a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B).

(8) FOREIGN ADVERSARY.—The term “foreign adversary”—

(A) means any foreign government or regime, determined by the Secretary, pursuant to sections 3 and 5, to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or the security and safety of United States persons; and

(B) includes, unless removed by the Secretary pursuant to section 6— (i) the People’s Republic of China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macao Special Administrative Region; (ii) the Republic of Cuba; (iii) the Islamic Republic of Iran; (iv) the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; (v) the Russian Federation; and (vi) the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under the regime of Nicolás Maduro Moros.

Based on the hyperventilating I've seen on the internet over the last few days, a lot of people have the wrong idea about this bill and think it applies broadly to all companies and all people. It does not. It only applies to the specific countries above, with said list capable of being amended by the Secretary of Commerce through a 180 day review process.

25 comments

25 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (25)

sorted by:

▲ 4 ▼

– AntonioOfVenice 4 points 1 year ago +4 / -0

laws can't ban judicial review. that's not how judicial review works. the courts would just ignore anything that violated separation of powers.

It literally said that it bans judicial review.
Jurisdiction stripping is legal as far as I know, but this is not doing that.

(b) Administrative and judicial review.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, actions taken by the President and the Secretary, and the findings of the President and the Secretary, under this Act shall not be subject to administrative review or judicial review in any Federal court, except as otherwise provided in this section. Actions taken by the Secretary under this Act shall not be subject to sections 551, 553 through 559, and 701 through 707 of title 5, United States Code.*

Congress gets a say, so both the executive agencies and Congress would have to agree to add or remove any country.

Can you cite me the part where Congress has to agree? Then it's not as tyrannical as I thought.

I can't think of any country that the US government has any problem with in this context apart from the ones already explicitly named.

Absolutely everyone! Who don't they have a problem with? It's the country that threatens the Solomon Islands with invasion, which blows up German infrastructure and threatens India with sanctions, which supported ethnic cleansing of Serbs unless Serbia would impose sanctions on Russia. I'm not 'worried' as much as I'm pointing out that this puts arbitrary power into the hands of the executive.

False, not only is there no political will to target India, "buying Russian oil" is not remotely within the criteria for being added to the list.

But if the Secretary of Commerce can unilaterally make that decision with no judicial review, you don't even need a criterion.

False. You actually come across as doing nothing more than arguing the Russian government position. Nobody thinks I'm "deranged" for pointing out that obvious fact, including you.

You have yet to produce even one person who thinks like you, even from my small legion of haters.

Go ahead and prove me wrong by taking a bunch of positions that would be against the Russian government

And then you'd say "HAH, MY CRITICISMS ARE SO STRONG THAT YOU TRIED DESPERATELY TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE NOT A RUSSIAN, AND YOU FAILED!" Doesn't work like that.

I know full well that you'll simply dismiss anything and claim it as vindication. And you know full well that you complimented me when I criticized Russia for Bucha and Mariupol, even as you echo every dumbass talking point coming out of the regime (and Italian actors showing off their expertise on geopolitics).

You claim to not be russian and not be living in russia, yet your positions are always 1:1 in line with what the russian government wants.

Well, you not only divined my ethnicity (Russian even though I'm "not white"), where I live (Russia, then Hungary, then Russia), even then the organization for which I work (the FSB).

You have Russia Derangement Syndrome.

permalink parent save report block reply