Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Apply it thrice, of course.
US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
191–200 of 568 posts
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#192[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#194[flagged]
Then change it through amendments. However you likely wont be able to because not enough people agree with you to do so. Our constitution was made to be specifically hard to change unless a vast majority agreed. That's a feature, not a bug. If a change can't be agreed upon at the national level it should stay at the state / local level. > It should, however, cause people who voted for this (hypothetically dead or dis…
> Then change it through amendments.
Doesn't really matter when the amendments go through the same electoral structure. I.e. if the electoral structure weren't fucked, there would be recent amendments worth discussing.
Or else everyone really does want to live in a capitalist shithole where people don't have any rights worth speaking of aside from ownership of property.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#195I'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…
Regulating commerce with foreign nations is also a specific enumerated congressional power in the commerce clause of article 1.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#196Does it really matter what a court finds, anymore? We don't exactly live in law-abiding times.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why I'm worried. To me it's obvious he was extremely upset with all those court cases against him, and now the courts and the Fed Chair are just straight ignoring him. So is Putin.
You have to force the issue. At the end of the day, congress will either stand by and allow the president to ignore the court, arrest judges, send his flying monkeys to intimidate them… or not. If the president doesn’t back down, we’ve crossed the rubicon.
We already crossed that rubicon Jan 6th
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#198[flagged]
>Our constitution is something to feel shame for—this obviously no longer represents us or our values in any way. Why would we look to 18th century aristocrats that share basically no values with us to see ourselves? We have real rights we care about—shelter, healthcare, education, and food. There's an Amendment process for updating the Constitution. It's been used many times, most recently in 1992.
> There's an Amendment process for updating the Constitution. It's been used many times, most recently in 1992.
Ok? Why would we go through that when we could just chuck that bitch off a cliff and start fresh? Are you trapped in 1779 and surrounded by rich, white, landed assholes? Why would you think this document represents the values of anyone you know or love? What precise language would make you think this?
We could emphasize the actual values of the people who live here—diversity, individualism, community, education, shelter, growth, appreciation of nature, appreciation for both idk diners and jazz.
Rather than fucking property, a cancer on humanity that has not yet extracted its full harm.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#199Earlier 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…
> I don't think it requires the courts to agree
This is misunderstanding civics. Laws are not algorithms. All laws must be interpreted. The government organ responsible for interpreting laws is the judiciary, definitionally.
It's not like there's a condition in a law saying "get the courts to agree". It's that there is a disagreement (among parties with standing) about what the law means. And so they fight about it in court, which is why we have courts.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
The Constitution said that the appointment required the advice and consent of the Senate.
It had nothing to do with him "trying" or being too "weak", it is called following the law. Trump doesn't do that, and the court rulings are showing that his power to rule via EO is not going to be allowed.
The Senate deliberately did not go into recess to avoid Obama having the power to appoint Garland via a recess appointment.
McConnell is more to blame for the dysfunction of Congress and the misuse of the Senate than anyone else.