81–90 of 568 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Better hope this bill that house republicans have passed dies in the senate, since in effect it lets Trump override the courts: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-hidden-provision-in-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress seems to want a king?
A plurality of Americans voted for this government, for better or worse. The courts are one of the primary avenues for the minority to express their will, but they move slowly, although slightly faster than congress.
Not saying this is good or bad, but this doesn’t seem surprising. Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. I’m surprised it took this long.
The Biden admin not only kept the first Trump admin's China tariffs in place but significantly expanded them under the same law. Was Biden acting like a king or does this analogy only go one way? https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-bi... https://web.archive.org/web/20250101032222/https://www.white... "[The Biden admin intends to use] executive authority"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you are correct. Biden used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trump has used the 1974 act, but he's also used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which is what the trade court just ruled on. My understanding is the Trump admin's strategy of putting a tariff on every country as an opening to negotiations doesn't fly under the 1974 act, which only allows placing tariffs on a country i…
Biden used executive authority on tariffs repeatedly, the same method Trump is using. And you're totally incorrect, Biden maintained the existing IEEPA tariffs on China that were imposed in Trump's first term.
The accusation was Biden significantly expanded tariffs using the same power Trump is claiming.
Simply maintaining an existing tariff is something different. Though it could certainly still be objectionable.
So, since they were apparently never legal in the first place, will there be refunds for all the tariffs already paid? That could really help out small businesses that were hit with huge tariff bills. Common sense would say yes, but not sure how the law actually works. I also wonder about the effects on the budget bill currently being worked on by Congress. Were they factoring in tariff revenue that now won't exist?…
If this ruling holds the best thing would have been to have never paid the tariffs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did Biden do that unilaterally claiming that a half-century economic trend was an EMERGENCY!!! or did he follow the legal process and negotiate with the Congress? They’ve delegated some powers but that’s not carte blanche.
[flagged]
It's all here in the decision if you care about the facts: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He only has to notify Congress within 48 hours, and if they don't approve it, those troops can stay deployed for up to 60 days. I'm just saying, he has already shown he's very interested in finding every loophole possible.
Oh, but isn't that law just for 'special military operations'? It's not proper 'war'? (I agree that in practice, a war is a war, whether your nation's laws officially call it as such or not doesn't make much of a difference.)
At least the American public does recognize them as wars, so there's that at least.
Not saying this is good or bad, but this doesn’t seem surprising. Isn’t the point of our government structure to stop any one person from acting like a king. I’m surprised it took this long.
The Biden admin not only kept the first Trump admin's China tariffs in place but significantly expanded them under the same law. Was Biden acting like a king or does this analogy only go one way? https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-bi... https://web.archive.org/web/20250101032222/https://www.white... "[The Biden admin intends to use] executive authority"
>Other tariffs imposed under different powers, like so-called Section 232 and Section 301 levies, are unaffected, and include the tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles.
It seems that Biden did not, at least in the instance you link to, do the thing that the courts have ruled against today.