[JumpCrisscross]

> tight indeed

Not even close. Bills of attainders named a person and suspended their rights with no right to trial. (Analogous to proscription.)

The only thing this law has in common with those is it names a person, ByteDance, as an intended target of enforcement. The enforcement actions must still be done through the courts to which ByteDance retains access.

[nickburns]

you miss my point (i.e., i'm on your side). what i've meant to say, like you, is that only a court of competent jurisdiction can make an actual legal determination as to whether or not some challenged legislative act amounts to a so-called and therefore invalid 'bill of attainder' as prohibited by the Attainder Clause, the third of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution[1].

it's merely my personal opinion that the legislative act at-issue is 'tightly' drafted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat...

[JumpCrisscross]

This is true of any legal question. That doesn’t mean third parties can’t opine on legality. This law is so far from a bill of attainder that it would be laughable for a lawyer to suggest to their client that it’s within the scope of reason.

[nickburns]

yes. still in agreement with your opining.

but a reasonable lawyer representing the interests of a challenger would be remiss not to at least submit the argument before the tribunal. even clear-loser claims should properly be reserved for any subsequent appeal.

(by the way, i'm trying to figure out where we've commented past each other and i think it might be with my use of the word 'tight.' i've meant to employ 'tight' idiomatically, like as in air- or water-tight. well drafted to say it plainly. i was simply playing off the "Nicely written..." comment to which i was replying.)