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

291–300 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#291

Post by tptacek »

margalabargala wrote: post #287
tptacek wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nearly every country that Trump tariffed does have some sort of tariff on the US. Canada has a sizable dairy tariff, for example. Whether that dairy tariff is particularly onerous on the US, worth antagonizing our closest ally for, that would be the political question, but certainly it's definitionally unequal.

I have no idea what this has to do with what I said. Maybe you think Trump can formulate a convincing argument that he is acting with the intended scope of the Tariff Act. Ok? All I'm saying is: his argument would very much be subject to challenge in court, and this is not a non-justiciable "political question".

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#293

Post by godelski »

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?

Can't happen unless 2/3rds of congress agree they want the same king

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#294

Post by kelnos »

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…

> 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.

Argue, perhaps, but ultimately a court could decide that no, it's not a disadvantage. And that seems to be exactly what the court has done here?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#295

Post by margalabargala »

tptacek wrote: post #291
margalabargala wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every country that Trump tariffed does have some sort of tariff on the US. Canada has a sizable dairy tariff, for example. Whether that dairy tariff is particularly onerous on the US, worth antagonizing our closest ally for, that would be the political question, but certainly it's definitionally unequal.

I have no idea what this has to do with what I said. Maybe you think Trump can formulate a convincing argument that he is acting with the intended scope of the Tariff Act. Ok? All I'm saying is: his argument would very much be subject to challenge in court, and this is not a non-justiciable "political question".

I was agreeing with you, and expanding by pointing out an example of an inequality.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#296

Post by davorak »

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…

> id the President make a finding? Here, the President did make a finding. At that point, the courts' jurisdiction gives way to the President's discretion.

This seems incorrect

> cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion

In this case though the laws wording would determine where the discretion starts and ends. "... whenever he shall find as a fact that such country—" so the president is limited by a.1 and a.2[1], the president was only granted discretion in under those proscribed limits.

So a find that says ~"neither a.1 or a.2 is occurring therefore I impose a tariff as president"(claiming no conditions to impose a tariff under the law are met but declaring a tariff anyway) seems reviewable by the court from your sources. Only having a finding is not enough, the finding has to follow the limits of discretion put forth by the law in question.

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

edit to remove double negative

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#297

Post by cvz »

growlNark wrote: post #198
curt15 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 co…

The U.S. constitution is about the structure of the government and the things it can and cannot do. It's a remarkably short and readable document for what it is and when it was first written. And while it has been amended very slowly, it has been amended all the way up until today.

It seems you have an issue with just one part of it, the bill of rights. Besides property---which doesn't just mean land---that part addresses such other "outdated" concepts as speech, assembly, religion, rights of the individual in criminal investigations and trials, and a number of others. What connects all these ideas together is that they are the rights the people have _against_ government action. Things the government should not do to harm people.

That purpose is really important. The constitution is not, and should not be, a list of good policies or social values. Most of it is a list of specific things the government did in the past---some of them truly heinous things---that it is not allowed to do anymore. There's only one notable exception: the 18th amendment, meant to enforce the social values of the time and which was, ya know, repealed later for being a disaster.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#299

Post by nothercastle »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #21
duxup wrote: post #9

The GOP controls the house and senate. Congress controls tariffs. If they followed the law congress could make the thing happen. But I don't think think independent thinking is allowed in the GOP, and it might force their hand if they had to actually put it to a vote ...

They have a narrow so small that passing tariffs would still be politically difficult even though they control both chambers, and that is not even considering a filibuster. I hope this judgement stands, however, trade actually works out really well for the US economy and its job market. Yes, we don't often manufacture the thing, but we have huge roles in designing those things and packing them with software. Even Chi…

There is no filibuster. Somehow the democrats are to weak to attempt one and completely caved on everything.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#300

Post by kelnos »

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.

> He doesn’t have to convince the courts of that. [..] As long as the President is plausibly exercising a foreign policy power Congress gave him...

Sure he does. The various tariff-related acts don't give the president carte blanche to set tariffs whenever he pleases. The acts give him the power to enact tariffs under certain conditions. If the president cannot convince a court that "having a trade deficit" falls under one of those conditions, then a court should, very correctly, tell the president he cannot enact those tariffs.

> The President makes foreign policy

That's a rather simplified view of the president's constitutional powers; the reality is more complex, and in this case that complexity does matter.

Post reply on HN