Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 - The Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. This could potentially allow the government to regulate a company's ability to operate an app that has interstate or international commerce implications.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 - The Necessary and Proper Clause, which grants Congress the authority to enact laws that are necessary and proper to carry out its enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate commerce. This could provide a constitutional basis for the government to mandate the sale of an app.
The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and Takings Clause - These clauses could limit the government's ability to force a company to sell an app without just compensation or due process of law. There have been court cases that have ruled on the government's ability to seize or compel the sale of private property.
Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld the government's power to regulate and even require the sale of private property in certain circumstances, such as when it is necessary for national security or public welfare. However, the government must still provide due process and just compensation. The specific circumstances and legal justification would need to be examined in each case.
The Supreme Court has issued several key rulings related to the government's power to regulate private property and compel the sale of assets:
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court upheld Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate even a farmer's personal wheat production, as it could impact interstate wheat markets. This established a broad interpretation of the government's commerce power.
In United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), the Court affirmed Congress's ability to prohibit the shipment of "filled milk" in interstate commerce, citing the Necessary and Proper Clause as a basis for the government's regulatory authority. This case further solidified the expansive reading of federal commerce power.
On the other hand, in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978), the Court ruled that a city's landmark preservation law requiring Penn Central to maintain its terminal building was a regulatory taking that required just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. This case recognized limits on the government's power over private property.
Additionally, in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the Court upheld the city's use of eminent domain to condemn private homes for economic development, sparking controversy over the scope of the Takings Clause. This decision underscored the complex balance between government authority and private property rights.
These landmark cases demonstrate the Supreme Court's efforts to delineate the boundaries of the federal government's constitutional powers to regulate and control private assets, while also protecting individual property rights.
Thanks for taking the time with the informative reply.
In regards to the nat security component-
I recall that congress blocked Dubai Ports World Inc from taking over control of some our ports at one time too.