>"So what do you suggest as a workable alternative?"
Do not ever limit freedoms of your own citizens under false pretense of "saving the children". As George Carlin said on this particular subject - fuck the children. Rights supposed to be increasing if you are healthy society.
If you do not like China you can kick them out. You already have enough laws an discretions to do so. There will of course be consequences but that's the price.
I'm inclined to personally agree, but we need to at least acknowledge the counterpoint. That being, in a cliched phrase, that "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact."
Or, in the words of Jefferson, "The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation."
That's the claim being made by lawmakers: that certain trade constitutes a threat to national security. I'm not really seeing much debate about that claim.
If I understand your point correctly, you're instead saying we already have the tools to ban TikTok (presumably under commerce laws) and we don't need any other means.
Yes we already have tools to ban TikTok if this is what we need. Instead they want a law which would allow them more and more ways to criminalize our own people. Message to them - GFY.
>"the Constitution isn't a suicide pact."
Acknowledged long time ago - do not yell fire in a cinema example.
Do not ever limit freedoms of your own citizens under false pretense of "saving the children". As George Carlin said on this particular subject - fuck the children. Rights supposed to be increasing if you are healthy society.
If you do not like China you can kick them out. You already have enough laws an discretions to do so. There will of course be consequences but that's the price.