Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#131

Post by curt15 »

mangoman wrote: post #121

I'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote: "Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declar…

> (other than being almost 100 years old)

Age alone shouldn't disqualify a law. The law above all other laws, aka the Constitution, is more than 200 years old.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#133

Post by koolba »

lesuorac wrote: post #98
whoisthemachine wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean a plurality of Americans voted for Obama. Should he have been able to ignore the will of congress and appoint supreme court justices to the vacant spots? Nobody is saying that the Republicans in congress cannot set tariffs. We're just saying the _president_ cannot singularly do it. If elected Republicans congress critters want to pass a law establishing the tariff rates and have the elected Republican presiden…

[flagged]

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#134

Post by rayiner »

mangoman wrote: post #121

I'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote: "Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declar…

The Tariff Act of 1930 reflects the duality between the President’s executive power to conduct foreign policy and Congress’s legislative power to set taxes.

Until the early 20th century, tariffs were the primary mechanism for raising federal revenue. So Congress viewed tariffs as a tax, within Congress’s purview. But the 1930 Tariff Act also recognizes that tariffs are also a tool of foreign policy, which is within the President’s purview.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#135

Post by JumpCrisscross »

msie wrote: post #63
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been hard for the judicial system as well, with Trump ignoring injunctions and orders as if they were just advisory. I wonder if he will try that here as well? "Oh, the court said no tariffs, but I'm not even going to bother with an appeal to the Supreme Court and just use an executive order to invalidate...", here is hoping he doesn't do that.

It would be nice if some US marshals put Trump in jail for ignoring the court but we know nothing will come of it.

> some US marshals put Trump in jail for ignoring the court

In chess you never capture the king. Similarly, the way to fight this is have arrested the lower rung players e.g. the tax collectors. (And ICE agents conducting illegal arrests.)

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#136

Post by eru »

School-Cotton wrote: post #118
eru wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US the president doesn't have the authority to start a war. Congress has the exclusive power to declare wars per the constitution.) (Obviously, in practice that's about as relevant congress having the sole authority over taxes, including tariffs.)

Starting a war and declaring a war are not the same thing. The president absolutely has the power to start wars. If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does it have?

See my parenthetical remark, and my follow-up comment about 'special military operations' at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44121957

To make it short, I agree with you.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#137

Post by wlesieutre »

mangoman wrote: post #121

I'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote: "Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declar…

He would have to convince the courts that I don't like having a trade deficit with anyone somehow means our trading partners are "placing a burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid"

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#138

Post by megaman821 »

nkrisc wrote: post #130
megaman821 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually I think saying both-sides is pretty lazy, but has any Congress in the last few decades done anything but delegate more of their authority to someone else? One party always complains about Executive Orders and interference when the other party is President, but then never curtails the power when they get a chance.

In that regard, yes, both. However in that time they were never really faced with any president who would take the power granted anywhere near the extreme we see today. When that happened, one party recoiled in horror and the other cheered it on.

Stuff like the Muslim ban was pretty bad the first round of Trump, but it didn't seem to motivate the Democrats to start limiting the Executive branch in any way when they got back to power. I am pretty sure, it will be the same next time they regain power.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#139

Post by refulgentis »

mangoman wrote: post #121

I'm not a lawyer or even close to it, but why wouldn't the trump admin use the tariff act of 1930? quote: "Whenever the President shall find as a fact that any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States by any of the unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid, he shall, when he finds that the public interest will be served thereby, by proclamation specify and declar…

Because the very act of being limited is emasculating and wouldn't close trade deficits in non-services, which he erroneously believes are some sort of taking-advantage-of, or at least, sees as an opportunity as a dominance ritual -- which would be utterly mundane, its traditional in autocratic regimes. Other Nations are always taking advantage of Us.

We're in an odd spot in America, whites born here have freedom of speech still, as long as you don't have any economic dependency on anything involving the gov't, but we haven't really had to deal with what goes on in a nation with heliocentric tendencies. So it sounds like an attack to say the above. So it goes.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#140

Post by twic »

pwarner wrote: post #34
tnel77 wrote: post #12

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.

Congress seems to want a king?

It seems to me that between gerrymandering and the filibuster, congress is basically unable to pass normal legislation when either party has a majority. Hence why all sorts of stuff gets passed by budget reconcilation now, because that is exempt from filibustering. And also why the parties are so keen to find creative new ways of effecting change - if they can't pass laws, they can let the president do what he wants, and just not stop him.
Post reply on HN