←back to thread

607 points givemeethekeys | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
sgnelson ◴[] No.44992267[source]
Everyone is talking about "bailouts" and "owning a company that the government funds."

This isn't about that at all. This is about the breakdown of the rule of law, a unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government and demanding a private enterprise give itself over to the government.

If you don't think there was an "or else" as part of this deal, you're largely mistaken. If you don't think that there will be other questionalbe demands placed on Intel in the future from this government, you are largely mistaken.

But y'all go ahead and can keep arguing over whether we should "get something back" from this deal. Because that's really going to maker ameraica graet agian.

replies(10): >>44992439 #>>44992508 #>>44992511 #>>44992539 #>>44992891 #>>44993105 #>>44993195 #>>44993865 #>>44993953 #>>44995597 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44992439[source]
> unitary executive bypassing all other branches of government

Is there even a pretence of a law being cited by the White House?

replies(2): >>44992473 #>>44992650 #
edge17 ◴[] No.44992650[source]
...thats how the US Constitution works. Congress passes laws (CHIPS Act) and the executive branch is empowered to carry them out - in this case the Secretary of Commerce and Commerce Dept. One can argue whether it stretches the intent of the law, nothing wrong with debate. But as of now, I don't think any judge or court has contested in the interpretation of the language.
replies(2): >>44992659 #>>44992774 #
cududa ◴[] No.44992659[source]
Which part of the CHIPS act says companies receiving funds have to give the government 10% of the company to continue receiving funds?
replies(1): >>44992696 #
edge17 ◴[] No.44992696[source]
Section 9902 of the act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to provide financial assistance to "covered entities"

One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done.

replies(2): >>44992769 #>>44992867 #
re-thc ◴[] No.44992867[source]
> One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly, which is exactly what the administration has done

You can? So some years later they can change it again? Where's the trust?

replies(1): >>44993496 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44993496[source]
The takeaway is the next Democrat president should just declare a public transit emergency and start building while the courts squabble. Same for housing reform. Same for climate change and shutting down coal power plants—once you shut it down and take out the turbines, it doesn’t matter what the courts say.
replies(1): >>44995988 #
1. boroboro4 ◴[] No.44995988[source]
Yes, they should.

However in case of democrats president Supreme Court will be surprisingly fast on issuing emergency decisions and stopping executive actions…

replies(1): >>44998492 #
2. yibg ◴[] No.44998492[source]
They should then just ignore the courts decisions they don’t like like the current administration does.