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

271–280 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#271

Post by whatshisface »

rayiner wrote: post #255
wlesieutre wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the law list specific conditions in which the president can apply the law if the president can apply it for any reason he wants? Surely there's a mechanism through the courts for someone to challenge illegal tariffs on their imports if the president declares "There's a 50% tariff on everything because I woke up in a bad mood today and it's unfair of other countries to be doing that."

> Surely there's a mechanism through the courts for someone to challenge illegal tariffs What you're describing is the Marbury tail wagging the Article II dog. The focus of the Constitution is allocation of power . The focus isn't creating a system where courts micromanage how the other two branches of government exercise that power. Marbury therefore goes to great lengths to draw lines between an executive's "minist…

If that were the true intent of the law, it could simply say "whenever the President chooses," instead of detailing precisely what the president must, "find as fact." Even the administration believes this, as they chose the particular fig leaf of "reciprocity" to defend that the statue was being followed.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#272

Post by awesome_dude »

skissane wrote: post #268
lolinder wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 comple…

> Discriminates in fact against the commerce of the United States, directly or indirectly, by law or administrative regulation or practice… in such manner as to place the commerce of the United States at a disadvantage compared with the commerce of any foreign country. I think the administration would find it easier to prove this than you think. They just have to find some regulation which they claim disadvantages th…

Yeah - the tariffs imposed on the islands with little to no population are definitely because nobody buying anything is blame for the fact they have a surplus

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#273

Post by k4shm0n3y »

Aurornis wrote: post #171
rayiner wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 President makes foreign policy, not the courts The courts aren’t making foreign policy. That’s a strawman argument. The President also doesn’t have unlimited powers. It’s President, not King or Dictator. The President must act within the powers granted by law. The court has determined this act was outside of the law.

No question the executive has had its powers extended beyond the original vision, but I don't often see the same criticism of the judiciary. Judges are more akin to a monarch than the US executive (courtroom is their kingdom), with very little recourse for ordinary citizens.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#274

Post by tptacek »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #251
irjustin wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it requires the courts to agree Eventually the courts have to agree/disagree if someone starts challenging it up the chain.

Technically they don't. They can say, for example, that the burden placed on commerce is a political question. That would be a declaration that they agree with the government, which looks like agreeing that a burden exists right now, but automatically switches positions whenever the administration does.

They could say that, but they won't, because "unequal impositions or discriminations aforesaid" is a straightforwardly justiciable question. Deciding whether things are "unequal" or "discriminatory" is almost exactly what courts are for.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#275

Post by hyperadvanced »

antris wrote: post #249
stogot wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unequal impositions or discriminations When it comes to china, this is definitely true. The rest of the world not so sure

Huh? American and European CEOs voluntarily move manufacturing to China, now everything gets made in China. And that's somehow China discriminating western countries?

I believe the reference here is that there are fairly protective trade policies in China, and they are similarly mercurial about what passes. See cases of IP theft, if you’re partial to IP as a concept (I’m not). They’re certainly not a laissez-faire paradise. Granted, merely terking our jerbs isn’t a good argument for slapping massive tariffs on them.

There’s probably a different thread on this but, TACO and the damage of having your own courts nullify the tariffs are a huge strategic L for the orange man.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#276

Post by jiggawatts »

jmyeet wrote: post #224
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…

This idea that the president has unrestricted ability to set foreign policy is an invention of this particular administration. In truth, powers are split between the executive and legislative branches [1]. Most notably, only Congress can declare war, which has been a real sticking point in the last century and why, for example, the Korean War wasn't technically a war (it was a "police action") and why the Vietnam War…

Well said! I also would like to note that something similar happened during the slow decline of the Roman Empire, where it morphed from a representative republic with a powerful senate to a dictatorial regime with one or at most three men in charge.

The only solace one can take from that historical precedent is that the full collapse took centuries, far longer than our lifetimes.

Our grandchildren may live in a time of the New American Empire that is ruled by an Emperor Trump III. It'll have a strange tradition of emperors painting their faces orange in the same manner as Roman emperors had a tradition of wearing purple robes.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#277

Post by synergy20 »

It's interesting. Nearly all orders from the executive branch are banned by some federal judge/court now(there are about 100 of federal courts, any one will do). While I don't agree with all the orders, the power of a random federal judge who can issue a nationwide ban relatively easily seems a little too much. To the point that the president is pretty much useless.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#278

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

disqard wrote: post #262
arunabha wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does. Because it draws a clear line in the sand. The administration can choose to disobey the order, but that opens up individuals in the govt to potential prosecution later. That's why governments try fairly hard to go the legal route or at least maintain a fig leaf of explanations, however implausible. The supreme court might have declared the president to be immune for official acts, but that doesn't exten…

Hmmm, I think a "pardon factory" would counter that. (not supporting anything about the current strategy... just pointing out that the "line in the sand" doesn't imply that any individuals would actually get in trouble)

This is the guy who bussed people from parking to his rally, but then declined to also get them from the rally back to parking. Seems like depending on a pardon down the road is a risky move.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#279

Post by School-Cotton »

synergy20 wrote: post #277

It's interesting. Nearly all orders from the executive branch are banned by some federal judge/court now(there are about 100 of federal courts, any one will do). While I don't agree with all the orders, the power of a random federal judge who can issue a nationwide ban relatively easily seems a little too much. To the point that the president is pretty much useless.

That is why appeals exist.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#280

Post by tptacek »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #244
mangoman wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the judicial, legislative, and executive branches are set forth in the constitution. The co-equal branches are supposed to check and balance each other. Merely making up a "story that sounds plausible" but is in fact "brain dead" should not be enough for the courts. That should be such an obviously losing argument that the executive is immediately injunction to cease whil…

I think that's directionally true in this case but not generally true: powers delegated to the executive branch by the Constitution can indeed allow the President to make up complete bullshit and largely avoid judicial scrutiny (at least with a conservative SCOTUS that believes in unitary executive power).

(Case in point: Trump's travel ban last term).

Post reply on HN