恃住IEEPA真係可以打橫行？

最近侵連發兩道行政令封殺TikTok同WeChat，所援引法例就係
國際緊急經濟權力法（International Emergency Economic Powers Act，IEEPA）

略略查過下，發現呢條法例真係賦予美國總統處理對外事務嘅無上經濟權力，特別係經濟制裁；無需國會批准，直頭可以為所欲為

計埋最近兩道命令，侵上任以來一共援引24次（其中委内瑞拉5次，伊朗4次），絕大部分同制裁有關

按照Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program嘅講法，衹要總統一話有威脅，就即刻可以引用該法例實施一系列經濟制裁同懲罰措施，而國會對此無能為力

All the president has to do is issue an executive order that contains the magic words, that there is an extraordinary and unusual threat - in this case, he's going to say unlawful immigration - that poses a threat to the national security or foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Presumably, he will then delegate to the secretary of commerce the job of actually imposing the tariffs. But there's nothing else that needs to be done between now and then. There's no waiting period. There's no opportunity for Congress to weigh in.

雖然IEEPA度有規定話總統引用該法之前需要咨詢國會，不過Elizabeth Goitein話做下樣就得

There is a requirement in the act that the President consult with Congress wherever possible before invoking IEEPA. I'm sure the president will try to construe some of the conversations (laughter) that have happened between him and Congress on immigration as his efforts to consult.

侵舊年同中國打貿易戰，就威脅話要用IEEPA逼美國公司撤出中國，不過受到各方質疑：
https://news.now.com/home/international/player?newsId=360804

另外，侵已經援引過IEEPA處理墨西哥邊境偷渡問題，舊年6月開始對墨西哥所有貨物徵收5%關稅，如果解決唔到就一路加徵：

To address the emergency at the Southern Border, I am invoking the authorities granted to me by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [(IEEPA)]. Accordingly, starting on June 10, 2019, the United States will impose a 5 percent Tariff on all goods imported from Mexico. If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico, to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the Tariffs will be removed. If the crisis persists, however, the Tariffs will be raised to 10 percent on July 1, 2019. Similarly, if Mexico still has not taken action to dramatically reduce or eliminate the number of illegal aliens crossing its territory into the United States, Tariffs will be increased to 15 percent on August 1, 2019, to 20 percent on September 1, 2019, and to 25 percent on October 1, 2019. Tariffs will permanently remain at the 25 percent level unless and until Mexico substantially stops the illegal inflow of aliens coming through its territory.

IEEPA賦予總統以下權力（查唔到更詳細中文source，粗粗地睇住先）：

1. 調查、監管或禁止任何外匯交易；任何受外國政府或其國民委託提供貸款或支付服務的銀行機構；貨幣或證券的跨境交易。

2. 於調查期間管制各種相關財產或權利。

3. 於美國向敵國發起軍事行動期間，或美國受到敵國及其國民攻擊時，可剝奪並轉讓相關的財產及權利。

法案原文：

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit--

(i) any transactions in foreign exchange,

(ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,

(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;

(B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and

(C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.

理論上國會可以否決總統引用IEEPA所頒佈嘅命令，不過需要三分之二以上多數；另外都可以用不予撥款嘅方式來阻止實行行政命令

http://www.takungpao.com.hk/finance/236134/2020/0805/483194.html
（雖然係大公報文章，不過睇下都無妨）

理論上，行政命令受到來自國會和法院的審查與制衡。國會可以通過立法直接推翻行政命令，而總統又可以行使否決權推翻國會的立法。為了防止行政機關專權，國會參眾兩院可以各以三分之二的絕對多數票重新通過立法案，推翻總統的否決。但在實踐中獲得絕對多數票十分困難，因此這僅僅停留在理論上的可能性。另一方面，國會也可以通過不予撥款的方式使行政命令難於執行，從而達到事實上否決行政命令的效果。此外，美國聯邦法院也負有審查行政命令的職責，但至今美國最高法院僅僅推翻過兩個行政命令。聯邦最高法院的傾向是在外交與國家安全領域上，法院無法取代行政部門的判斷，而需要保持「司法尊重」。

@恆智德 原來舊年最終都係無對墨西哥徵稅，5月30號放風話6月10號開徵，6月7號緊急刹車
https://apnews.com/e18f85f3f23f4fdea76831c80540af15

President Donald Trump announced late Friday that he had suspended plans to impose tariffs on Mexico, tweeting that the country “has agreed to take strong measures” to stem the flow of Central American migrants into the United States.

A “U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration” released by the State Department said the U.S. “will immediately expand the implementation” of a program that returns asylum-seekers who cross the southern border to Mexico while their claims are adjudicated. Mexico will “offer jobs, healthcare and education” to those people, the agreement stated.

Mexico has also agreed, it said, to take “unprecedented steps to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration,” including the deployment of the Mexican National Guard throughout the country, especially on its southern border with Guatemala. And Mexico is taking “decisive action to dismantle human smuggling and trafficking organizations as well as their illicit financial and transportation networks,” the State Department said.

@Rehk 之前美國總統用呢條法律一般都係用來制裁嚴重侵犯人權嘅獨裁政府，比如敘利亞、俄羅斯等
侵就用佢來打貿易戰，實際上係擴大總統權力，美國國内都有唔少人質疑

呢條法律本質上係獨裁者法例——羅馬共和國時期，戰時狀態下羅馬元老院會授權一個政務官全權處理政務，就係所謂dictator——援引IEEPA前提都係要宣佈緊急狀態

華為應該都係IEEPA打擊對象

https://www.thestandnews.com//international/特朗普簽行政命令封殺-華為-限制令美國-5g-網絡建設落後他人/

2019年5月15日，侵簽發行政命令「確保信息和通信技術及服務供應鏈安全」，宣布進入「全國緊急狀態」，禁止美國企業使用對國家構成安全風險的電訊設備商所製造的設備。（今年5月又延長多一年 ）

美國商務部下屬工業和安全局同日發表聲明說，將把華為及其附屬 70家 公司列入「實體清單」，清單上的企業或個人購買或通過轉讓獲得美國技術需獲得有關許可。但如果美國認為技術的銷售或轉讓行為危害美國國家安全或外交政策利益，則會拒絕頒發許可。

張實體清單原來涵蓋華為全球業務，各國子公司都有（包括緬甸）

@恆智德 不過華為個禁令其實都未點執行過
從舊年到而家一直處於暫緩期，前後已經延長五次
最近一次係5月，延多九十日，就來到期，不過商務部話係最後一次

今年6月中旬商務部又話美國企業可以同華為一齊制定5G標準，搞邊科？？

@恆智德 先過半個月，6月30日FCC就確定華為和中興會對美國通訊網絡及未來5G發展構成國家安全威脅

“With today’s Orders, and based on the overwhelming weight of evidence, the Bureau has designated Huawei and ZTE as national security risks to America’s communications networks—and to our 5G future,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

所以FCC 每年83 億美元的通用服務基金（Universal Service Fund）不能用於購買、獲取、維護、改進、修正或以其他方式使用華為或中興生產或提供的任何設備或服務。

As a result of today’s action, money from the FCC’s $8.3 billion a year Universal Service Fund may no longer be used to purchase, obtain, maintain, improve, modify, or otherwise support any equipment or services produced or provided by these suppliers.

@恆智德 又過半個月（July 15），龐佩奧點名華為，話佢為中共侵犯人權提供實質性幫助，所以會限制部分華為員工入境美國

Companies impacted by today’s action include Huawei, an arm of the CCP’s surveillance state that censors political dissidents and enables mass internment camps in Xinjiang and the indentured servitude of its population shipped all over China. Certain Huawei employees provide material support to the CCP regime that commits human rights abuses.

Telecommunications companies around the world should consider themselves on notice: If they are doing business with Huawei, they are doing business with human rights abusers.

@Rehk IEEPA最大問題在於總統本人可以宣佈緊急狀態
國會如果想終結緊急狀態，必須要超過三分二支持
所以一般來講，總統揸住份IEEPA真係可以向對外事務上為所欲為

@RAM友 在 恃住IEEPA真係可以打橫行？ 中說：

歸根究底唔係淨係制度既問題，同人都有關係。美國真係天選之子，咁多屆總統都冇出事

唔係咁講，對外事務上美國總統唔會去得太盡，恐怕都係因爲國内輿論掣肘

當年撤出越南戰爭其中一個原因，據説就係因爲平民傷亡畫面傳返美國引起輿論譁然，美軍失利場面都使大衆懷疑政府宣傳，甚至覺得被政府背叛，反戰呼聲越來越高

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_news_media_and_the_Vietnam_War
The role of the media in the perception of the Vietnam War has been widely noted. Intense levels of graphic news coverage correlated with dramatic shifts of public opinion regarding the conflict, and there is controversy over what effect journalism had on support or opposition to the war, as well as the decisions that policymakers made in response.

As more American households obtained television sets, it became easier for citizens to keep up with the war. The media played a huge role in what the American people saw and believed. By the mid-1960s, it was becoming increasingly clear that the war was not going well for the U.S. and South Vietnam, despite the optimism of official accounts. As reports from the field became increasingly accessible to citizens, public opinion began to turn against U.S. involvement, though many Americans continued to support it. Others felt betrayed by their government for not being truthful about the war. This led to an increase in public pressure to end the war.