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

411–420 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#411

Post by jmyeet »

genewitch wrote: post #401
jmyeet wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Chevron decision told Congress to do its fucking job and stop delegating it to the for-profit entities the regulations are supposed to apply to, unchecked. The story of how it made it to the supreme court is a good one, about having to pay an inspector to ride on every fishing trip... I don't see how this diminishes congressional power, unless you consider delegate count a sign of power.

This is a conservative talking point to justify stripping Congress of power.

The whole reason Chevron came into existence is because it's impossible for Congress to pass explicit regulations for every little thing as soon as it's needed. So agencies were instead given broad legislative mandates like "keep the water clean" or "manage fish stocks" because it was impossible to enumerate every circumstance.

So for 40 years through 7 presidents (4 Republican, 3 Democrat) with both parties controlling the House and the Senate at different times, Congress passed laws with Chevron in mind. Congress had the ability to roll back Chevron and declined to do so.

The backers of overturning Chevron know it's impossible. That's why they did it. It's just unadulterated greed to deregulate so companies can wantonly pollute the water and overfish without any sort or oversight, compliance and repercussions for slightly higher profits... temporarily. And when there's a mess that needs cleaning up, they'll get the taxpayers to pay for it.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#412

Post by eru »

bruce511 wrote: post #308
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.

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 t…

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

I've yet to see a good use of tariffs.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#413

Post by sorcerer-mar »

rayiner wrote: post #318
whatshisface wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comme…

But that's not the argument they're making. You are discussing whether Congress is allowed to pass such a law (they are), GP is discussing the gap between the statute and the executive's action -- that absolutely is reviewable.

In particular, Section 338 requires a factual finding (from POTUS, which is not directly reviewable) but then also tasks USICT with "ascertaining" the facts. It doesn't explicitly give USICT ability to review the factual finding, but it's a very plausible argument that if USICT is tasked with ascertaining facts and those conflict with POTUS's declaration, then POTUS is exceeding statutory authority.

338 has never been used and it's not clear it'd pass Constitutional muster to begin with.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#414

Post by florbnit »

helsinki8 wrote: post #382
palmotea wrote: post #364

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" Why? If the GP quoted the law correctly and the plain-language reading is also the legal one, it's all about what the president finds as fact. I don't s…

"Finds as fact" isn't the same thing as imagines/thinks/claims. Facts are still different than opinions, that statute doesn't give him unchecked power to declare any crazy idea as fact.

It’s so surreal that this has to be explained in this day and age.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#415

Post by PleasureBot »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #355
Aloisius wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it has always been like this. We elect Presidents to faithfully execute the law, not Dictators to ignore it. The courts have always ruled against executive for disobeying the law. Preventing any one branch from amassing too much power is the whole reason the system of checks and balances exists. The system, while sometimes aggravatingly slow to change, has allowed us as a country to continually operate under the…

Executive orders are shot down by courts all the time. And it always starts in lower courts, with appeals going up to higher courts (both sides can appeal!). This is true for any president, Democrat or Republican, the judicial system is a check on executive power, with the understanding that the executive gets to nominate judges and congress gets to approve them. It is really weird how many people don't get this, and…

The discourse coming from the political right is clearly meant to attack the Judicial branch. They are going after what they call "Partisan judges" or "Activist judges" or "Radical leftist judges" or "Clinton and Obama appointees". They want to remove all judges who do not let them support whatever the administration wants to do.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#416

Post by boroboro4 »

KPGv2 wrote: post #348
boroboro4 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does affect trade (setting tariff high enough basically equals to no trade policy for example) with those countries and hence it is foreign policy.

If that's true, then all criminal law in the US is foreign policy because the existence of laws restricts people's decision to visit the US to commit crimes. Hell we don't even need to go that far afield: your logic implies all taxes are foreign policy, as they all affect foreign trade.

The policies you mention don’t target particular countries, and this is where the difference lies in my opinion. The part of the policies which is countries specific is in fact foreign policy.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#417

Post by fach »

dylan604 wrote: post #144
l33tfr4gg3r wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... for now, and barely.

What evidence do you have for this? The democrats are showing nothing that suggests they will take either chamber of congress. Even if they got control of the house and actually impeached, the results would be no different than the previous 2 impeachments where the senate took no action. Even if they get control of both chambers, they'd have to have an over whelming victory to reach enough seats to secure a convictio…

History, particularly in the last 30 years where political polarization has significantly increased:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_midterm_election...

Trump lost 41 seats in the house in his first term and the administration wasn't anywhere near as polarizing. The voting bloc for mid-terms is very different from presidential elections.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#418

Post by somenameforme »

forgotoldacc wrote: post #395
somenameforme wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany isn't a "trap". They're a crystal clear illustration of the problem with no hypotheticals necessary. Their economy is in recession, businesses are collapsing, and and their "solution" is to swap one dependency for another. All the while they're left entering into unprecedented levels of debt just to try to keep their economy from outright collapsing. The most likely outcome for them is long-term stagflation a…

>Their economy is in recession, businesses are collapsing >All the while they're left entering into unprecedented levels of debt So is America because of the tariffs and tax cuts for the ultrarich. Also, a lot of the tariffs were delayed or canceled. Is that a good idea? Also, those canceled tariffs were brought back. Was that a good idea? Those brought back tariffs were also delayed again. Was that a good idea?

With due respect, I really don't think you're thinking about your arguments. You're complaining about tax cuts and tariffs in the same sentence. You probably don't realize that tariffs are literally a tax, generally paid by the richest companies in America. The partisan takes on these issues often don't really make any sense whatsoever.

America entered into unprecedented debt exclusively by unprecedented spending. Government receipts (all the money the government takes in each year) has exponentially increased and basically never decreased except during major economic crises. [1] It's just that for every $1 the government takes in, they invariably decide to spend $1.20 more.

For the US this was more tolerable than for other nations because of a variety of factors - essentially coming down to the "special" place of USD in the world economy. But for a country like Germany diving into the debt hole will likely be catastrophic, even more so as they don't have control over their own currency. Gerexit starting to trend would be amusing, but also not entirely surprising if you've been paying any attention to German politics.

As for the implementation of the tariffs - no I don't think it's been done well. Of course I can take a purely ideological stance while the government is more obligated to take a pragmatic one, balancing the short-term pain such a change will entail against public support of it.

[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGRECPT

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#419

Post by abduhl »

rayiner wrote: post #404
tptacek wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case before the Court of International Trade failed on non-delegation and major questions grounds. But my point isn't that SCOTUS will affirm the lower court here (though: they will), but rather that your logic upthread doesn't hold. You said "the President makes foreign policy, not the courts". Plain category error.

Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage. And the court must purported to kneecap him. Of course it’s an exercise of the President’s foreign policy powers, and that’s why Congress gave the President this authority over tariffs in the 1930 act. The major questions issue shows how out on a limb this court is. There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD e…

>> Trump is knee-deep in negotiating with foreign countries on trade deals using the tariffs as leverage.

This statement is completely speculative. There is no evidence that substantive negotiations are happening on any trade deals.

>> There’s currently a circuit split on whether MQD even applies to the president.

The president is not a party to this suit so I don’t understand what this statement has to do with anything.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#420

Post by wqaatwt »

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…

Well the average tariff on US goods e.g. in the EU is 4.1%. So sure Trump could add a percentage point or two to make them equal. That wouldn’t exactly fit his goals though..
Post reply on HN