undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrifung7y ago0 comments

I think the comment you're replying to meant more that they should be obliging businesses to do things but not specific businesses.

E.g. make laws that apply to all companies as opposed to picking on one company or another.

So I think you're actually agreeing since gravity applies to all things vs arbitrarily deciding which things to pull down.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

pdkl957y ago· 1 in thread

Bills of attainder (laws that target a specific person or group of people) have always been unconstitutional. The are explicitly prohibited federally in Article 1, Section 9:

    No Bill of Attainder ... shall be passed.

States are explicitly prohibited in Section 10:

    No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder ...

Any legislation that specifically targets Google would be quickly overturned by the court.

dragonwriter7y ago

A Bill of Attainder is much narrow than any legislation that targets a particular actor; this is a case where the specific details matter a lot (as does the mood of the Supreme Court, whose tests on this issue have evolved over time in shifting directions.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse