[removed] 21 hours ago
[deleted]
Reply View 0 replies
edge17 20 hours ago

...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.

Reply View 9 replies
  • cududa 20 hours ago

    Which part of the CHIPS act says companies receiving funds have to give the government 10% of the company to continue receiving funds?

    Reply View 6 replies
    • edge17 20 hours ago

      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.

      Reply View 5 replies
      • JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago

        > One can argue how to interpret "financial assistance" broadly

        The money was already granted. Trump threatened the CEO personally and then they came to this agreement ex post facto.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • re-thc 20 hours ago

        > 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?

        Reply View 3 replies
  • JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago

    > as of now, I don't think any judge or court has contested in the interpretation of the language

    Who has standing to sue here? The best I could see is a shareholder lawsuit, but that will take years. Meanwhile, this administration is getting slapped down by courts across the country, including a SCOTUS willing to overturn precedent to curry his favour.

    Reply View 1 reply