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

311–320 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#311

Post by [deleted] »

forgotoldacc wrote: post #231
UncleOxidant wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and half the country will cry that the courts are being ignored and justice will rain down soon, and the other half will say hell yeah, ignore those woke courts. Thing is, I think support for these tariffs is way less than 1/2 of the country. Even parts of MAGA have been expressing doubt about the tariffs (or at least the hamfisted way they've been implemented).

Apparently up to about 40% support them, depending on the poll. [1] That 40% seems absolutely unshakeable in their support. No matter what happens, that group will support it. And 40% is pretty close to half. [1] https://www.progressivepolicy.org/polling-u-s-public-is-agai...

[deleted]

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#312

Post by aetherson »

XenophileJKO wrote: post #201
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…

This still seems like a very low bar. If the country has ANY trade treaty with someone else that has trade advantage, than it would appear like that fits the letter of the law.

We have most favored nation status with most other countries, so they generally don't have any other nation that is getting better terms than we do. That's the point of the WTO.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#313

Post by rayiner »

davorak wrote: post #296
rayiner wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The court’s power is limited to determining whether the President made a finding in the nature of the finding required by the law. What the court can’t do is then second guess that finding—analyzing it substantively to determine whether it is correct or not.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#314

Post by aetherson »

aaronharnly wrote: post #156
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.

People on this thread badly need to familiarize themselves with most-favored-nation/permanent normal trade relations. There seems to be a contingent who believe that there are a mess of separately negotiated tariffs between each country.

But there aren't. The WTO generally put that system away and now to first approximation everyone gets the same deal as everyone else.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#316

Post by dmvdoug »

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…

Many other statutory schemes were enacted afterwards that placed additional restrictions on the tariff authority Congress gave the President. You can’t read one section of one statute and just assume it alone applies. Just look at the variety of crap you can find in Titles 19 and 50 having to do with trade policy.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#317

Post by kelnos »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #181
rayiner wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no “attacks on people’s voting rights.” It’s a canard Democrats trot out to energize their base, just like Republicans trot out lies about election fraud. For example, studies show voter ID doesn’t reduce turnout (but also doesn’t reduce fraud). https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v... . Gerrymandering doesn’t affect the presidential election. But the GOP won the House popular vote by…

You are so dead wrong I don't even know where to start. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential election? Surveys show how everyone would have voted? Do you even hear yourself?

The presidential election depends on where the borders of each state are, and the population of each state as determined by the decennial census. Gerrymandering does not affect either of those things.

(I otherwise 100% agree that Republicans engage in various forms of voter suppression and disenfranchisement. Not sure what fantasy world GP lives in where they don't.)

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#318

Post by rayiner »

whatshisface wrote: post #271
rayiner wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Legally, there is a major distinction between whether an entity charged with making a finding as indeed done so, and whether that finding correctly reflects the actual facts.

This is not a novel concept. When courts review laws made by Congress, they don’t get to second guess Congress’s economic reasoning. Congress could ban interstate transportation of beer on Tuesdays. As long as the law was within Congress’s commerce power, courts don’t get to second guess the rationale for the law.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#319

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #282
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.

No, setting tariffs is a regulatory and economic power, and even in a hard unitary executive model, the President doesn't have plenary power over tariffs. This is literally an enumerated power of Congress, which makes it hard for me to understand why you started down this path on this thread.

That’s an argument that the Tariff Act of 1930 is unconstitutional, which is a different argument.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#320

Post by tptacek »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #305
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…

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.

Any business impacted by the tariffs will have standing to go to federal court and argue that trade practices accepted for a century by legislatures and administrations of both parties do not constitute "unequal impositions" under the intended meaning of the statute.
Post reply on HN