There are no “enforcement questions” because the bill does not criminalize activity. There is no “enforcement.” Essentially this does nothing more than codify and marginally expand the common law cause of action for false personation, increasing the amount of recoverable damages from the actual amount of damages to the greater of $1000 or treble damages.

For the same reason, there is no First Amendment implication. First, the private individual whose name is trespassed upon is a not a state actor when he sues under this section, so the government is not the entity stifling speech when that person sues. Second, to the extent that the government could be a state actor by codifying an expanded common law action and increasing damages, it’s well within the bounds of the government’s police power to prevent fraud and trespass, which are not constitutionally-protected speech.

This is not targeting Hamilton writing the Federalist Papers as Publius. This is targeting Hamilton writing “I did Sally Hemmings. She was hot. Signed, Thomas Jefferson.” It would be reaching anyone who launched “kentonngo.com,” dedicated to how much the author, putatively Kenton Ngo, liked eating babies. Or cheating on exams in high school. Or procuring election fraud.

So, yes, it would reach the harrietmiers site, but only if Harriet Miers decided to sue and if the tortious conduct fell within the reach of Virginia’s long-arm statute for personal jurisdiction. (She doesn’t live in Virginia, as far as I know.) The long-arm statute and federal due process jurisprudence determine whether or not a defendant can be sued in state court in a private action. Moreover, ICANN, the webhost, the registrar, &c., would not be defendants to an action under this law because they are not the “person using the name of another.” So all of the objections you present here are without merit.