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

151–160 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#151

Post by rayiner »

wlesieutre wrote: post #137
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"

He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. The President makes foreign policy, not the courts. As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him, the courts don’t get to reweigh the evidence and decide for themselves whether the trade deficits result from other countries placing trade barriers or something else.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#152

Post by MichaelZuo »

yieldcrv wrote: post #107
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.

There are things both sides do and it is valid for those things to annoy you and be your primary cause Campaign finance Trading on privileged information Voting as a bloc and not in favor of their constituents Being a useless and ignorable vocal opposition when their bloc is not in power, ignoring indiscretions when their bloc is in power

How does this relate to the parent comment?

It seems like the parent is clearly asking for a concrete example.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#153

Post by mangoman »

rayiner wrote: post #134
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 t…

Right. this whole episode is about foreign policy, why not use the act that is meant for it?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#154

Post by growlNark »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #128
growlNark wrote: post #122

[flagged]

> I also hate the concept of a "trade court". Where the fuck were you for the past 400 years? You’re describing a court whose history traces closer to the founding of our republic than to the present day [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Inter...

> You’re describing a court whose history traces closer to the founding of our republic than to the present day

This is certainly no less damning. However, it is very illustrative of our colorful history: trade above humans!

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#155

Post by koolba »

ChrisLTD wrote: post #58
MBCook wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But those weren’t under the emergency economics power law Trump is using this time right?

And these tariffs apply to the entire world for some reason?

The rationale for universal tariffs is it prevents rerouting goods to circumvent their intent.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#156

Post by aaronharnly »

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…

I’m also none of those things, but that section of Smoot-Hawley appears to apply when a foreign country imposes such burdens on the United States * which is not equally enforced upon the like articles of every foreign country.” So not just that it treats the US differently than itself, but that it treats the US differently than any other country.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#157

Post by SlightlyLeftPad »

rayiner wrote: post #134
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 t…

I think what’s actually happened in reality is that Congress intentionally gave the President unrestricted authority over both of these things and with that, immunity, or in other words the power to ignore court rulings.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#158

Post by bilbo0s »

mangoman wrote: post #153
rayiner wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Right. this whole episode is about foreign policy, why not use the act that is meant for it?

Um..

Because 50% maximum.

How would that work when you want a 145% tariff?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#159

Post by lolinder »

mangoman wrote: post #146
wlesieutre wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

I don't think it requires the courts to agree - just that there's a burden or disadvantage and that it's in the "public interest" which seems like a pretty low bar to make up a story that sounds plausible. i think the idea that a trade deficit is a disadvantage is kinda brain dead, but it's plausible sounding enough to argue in court. throw in unequal tariff rates and it seems like an easier win than the IEEPA's emer…

"Aforesaid" is a very specific word that means that the "unequal impositions or discriminations" refers back to specific concepts previously referenced in the law. He can't (legally) just invent his own interpretations for what "unequal impositions" and "discriminations" entails, he has to convince a court that the specific actions he's retaliating against are covered by the "aforesaid" definitions.

Here's the complete text [0]. The act authorizes imposition of tariffs on any country that:

> Imposes, directly or indirectly, upon the disposition in or transportation in transit through or reexportation from such country of any article wholly or in part the growth or product of the United States any unreasonable charge, exaction, regulation, or limitation which is not equally enforced upon the like articles of every foreign country; or

> Discriminates in fact against the commerce of the United States, directly or indirectly, by law or administrative regulation or practice, by or in respect to any customs, tonnage, or port duty, fee, charge, exaction, classification, regulation, condition, restriction, or prohibition, in such manner as to place the commerce of the United States at a disadvantage compared with the commerce of any foreign country.

This is pretty specific. The tariffs/customs/dues/whatever don't even have to be unfair relative to what the US charges on that country's imports into the US, it's specifically targeting cases where a foreign country discriminates against US trade over and beyond the dues it charges on other countries' trade.

It'd be very difficult to prove that discriminatory treatment for each and every one of the 180+ countries caught up in Trump's tariffs.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1338

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#160

Post by oivey »

rayiner wrote: post #151
wlesieutre wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. The President makes foreign policy, not the courts. As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him, the courts don’t get to reweigh the evidence and decide for themselves whether the trade deficits result from other countries placing trade barriers or something else.

The courts interpret the law, so in fact he does have to convince them that his interpretation is true.
Post reply on HN