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

301–310 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#301

Post by tptacek »

k4shm0n3y wrote: post #273
Aurornis wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Hence the cases and controversies clause.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#302

Post by kelnos »

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…

Congress didn't delegate tariff power to the president absolutely. The executive branch still needs to make the case that the tariffs are being put into place for specific reasons that are covered by the specific ways that Congress delegated tariff power.

The court here seems to have decided the executive has not done that.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#303

Post by davorak »

k4shm0n3y wrote: post #273
Aurornis wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Complaints about "judicial activism", or complaining about "judges that go to far, have been blasted everywhere since the at least the 90s so more than my adult life, at least from what I can remember growing up in the middle of the USA.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#304

Post by RHSeeger »

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.

> I’m surprised it took this long.

So far, "it" isn't actually anything though. Trump, and the Republicans working with him, have been completely ignoring courts telling them to do things since day 1. Time and time again, he's been told by a court "you cannot (or must) do this" and he does completely the opposite (and, by he does, I mean he orders other to do it, and the follow that order).

We are at the point where there is nothing lawful about his presidentship, but the Republicans just keep doing what he tells them to, anyways.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#305

Post by thaumasiotes »

lolinder wrote: post #159
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…

"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…

So, they need to argue that the foreign countries' practice imposes a disadvantage in fact on the commerce of the USA compared with the commerce of any foreign country? They already have argued that; it was headlined in Trump's first announcements.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#306

Post by erulabs »

forgotoldacc wrote: post #206
solardev wrote: post #196

Does it really matter what a court finds, anymore? We don't exactly live in law-abiding times.

A lot of people really seem to think this is the end of everything. But there are two options here. One is that some other irrelevant and obscure law from 200 years ago is dug up and used to justify the tariffs and another long court battle begins. The other is that the ruling is simply ignored, just like many others, and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and…

Laws are laws and their age has no bearing nor does it make them irrelevant. The constitution is “from 200 years ago” too.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#307

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

> They just have to find some regulation which they claim disadvantages the US compared to other countries.

Well, sort of. The threshold is much lower than that; the law is explicit that no regulation is necessary:

>> by law or administrative regulation or practice

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#308

Post by bruce511 »

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.

Like most things in life, tarifs can be used well, or used badly.

Canada's Dairy Tariff is specifically designed to protect a specific local industry, which exists, is of national interest to keep, and which could come under threat from cheap alternatives imported from abroad. It's specific, targeted, and serves a valuable purpose. They have been in place a long time, and provide a stable trading environment making the future easier to predict.

Trumps tarrifs are the complete opposite. He could have done tarifs well, but he's lazy and so opted for "easy" instead. By tarrifing countries you mix all industries together.

For example coffee. The US imports 99% of their coffee. The local coffee industry is tiny, and limited to Hawaii. There's no national interest, no local jobs, nothing. Tariffing coffee just makes it more expensive.

No one is planting coffee trees. Partly because the US has the wrong climate, but also because growing new trees (or building a factory) takes years, and a lot of investment. That means confidence that the situation today will last long enough to get a return.

In truth the tarrifs seldom make it past the weekend, or a couple weeks, then they're suspended. The administration openly admits they're negotiating "trade deals". So, I can't invest anything based on current tarrifs because they're very impermanent.

This nonsense is not about whether tarifs are good or bad. This is about how they gave been done (which is epically badly, and stupidly.)

On the upside a generation of future kids will learn about this, and how doing the right thing badly is worse than doing nothing at all.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#309

Post by disqard »

arunabha wrote: post #267
disqard wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Yeah, but then you're depending on a notoriously fickle and unreliable person wanting or remembering to do that when the time comes. Sure, if you're a true believer in the cause you'll take that risk, but a majority of the people in any administration are opportunists, not ideologues.

Fair point!

I thought more like you in the past -- I was near-certain he'd toss the whole lot of J6 rioters under the bus.

When he didn't, I've recalibrated to: if it "owns the libs", he'll pardon them (or something actionably similar).

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#310

Post by Aloisius »

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…

> Most notably, only Congress can declare war, which has been a real sticking point in the last century

Sticking point? Where in the Constitution does it say a declaration of war is required to wage war?

We didn't have a literal declaration of war for the Quasi War (1798-1800), the First Barbary War (1801–1805), the Second Barbary War (1815), any of the many American Indian wars, etc. That clearly didn't seem to be a sticking point for George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or James Madison.

Post reply on HN