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

441–450 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#441

Post by BeFlatXIII »

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…

Overturning Chevron isn’t stripping Congressional power so much as it’s forcing Congress to explicitly use its power not to lose it. De facto, it does strip Congressional power, but that’s solely because Congress is too incompetent to fulfill its role.

Likewise, it also strips Executive power. Executive agencies can no longer fill in the obvious gaps in what Congress passed.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#442

Post by BeFlatXIII »

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.

> I don't see how this diminishes congressional power

Congress is too incompetent to assert its power.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#443

Post by toomuchtodo »

godelski wrote: post #286
toomuchtodo wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congressional Research Service: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): A Legal Overview - https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45732.pdf - April 17th, 2023 Wikipedia: Sovereign immunity in the United States - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...

As your first link says, this doesn't give them sweeping immunity. The intent of the policy (again, discussed in the first page but more later) is to protect the government from doing reasonable things. Sweeping immunity obviously doesn't exist, as evidenced by the court ruling this thread is about. The government gets sued all the time and frequently they have to pay damages. Remember, the US was explicitly set up t…

Based on my citations, I believe there is an argument to be made that government and presidential immunity might prevent any civil claims from sticking, but I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong by the outcome of a legal action. If the tariffs are determined to be unlawful (after exhaustion of any appeals), one would think recourse would be possible, but only the outcome of legal proceedings would confirm.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#444

Post by BeFlatXIII »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #340
stevenwoo wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three of the post senior citizen Democratic representatives died in office so far so the margin is actually getting bigger as time goes on, the GOP had room to make multiple mistakes on the budget bill where one GOP rep fell asleep and didn't vote and one rep was present but just missed the deadline to vote. The Democratic senators have not shown the spine to put a hold on any appointments or pull a Tuberman and not…

> Three of the post senior citizen Democratic representatives died in office None of those deaths are in swing districts. Fetterman was always a right of center politician, the only reason he isn't a Republican is that the Republicans simply do not do moderates anymore.

But the Dems are still down three votes until those seats are filled.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#445

Post by BeFlatXIII »

nessbot wrote: post #10
ivape wrote: post #8

I'm a little worried about this. This president may take out this setback on innocent people. I don't think it's out of the question that he may start a war.

So he gets to flaunt the law because he's vindictive? Not a system I wanna live in.

I was going to say, now is the best tome to double down and escalate. Never back down.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#446

Post by lerchmo »

genewitch wrote: post #398
Terr_ wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trump's tariffs. Republican tariffs, they're complicit. Literally every single Republican in the House voted to shield Trump's "national emergency" [0] from being challenged as invalid. [0] The National Emergency of... a relatively small amount of fentanyl seized at the Canadian border.

The amount of fentanyl (just fent) siezed through April of this year since January was enough to kill 700,000 people. I guess you can disbelieve the story that car part vsndors were trafficking fentanyl, but it is a problem.

Enough to kill is a meaningless metric.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#447

Post by MBCook »

Brybry wrote: post #269
deathanatos wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's wrong, yes, but no, gerrymandering does not affect the presidential election, since the gerrymandered borders are congressional district borders. (Unless you've got an argument that the state borders are gerrymandered, in which case, let's hear it!)

I think, indirectly, gerrymandering might impact the presidential election because a) redistricting can cause polling location changes[1] and b) the voter's knowledge/sentiment of living in a gerrymandered system. If either a) or b) impacts voter turnout then it could impact the presidential election even though the districts themselves don't matter. I found some evidence both for and against voter turnout impacts fr…

It could be used electron more of party X, which could be used to get enough votes to make new laws to try to effect voting on a national level.

It is more tenuous than the others in the list, but I suspect it could be used.

And either way it had the psychological effect of people knowing their vote may not count because they vote for the wrong party in their district and have no chance of their candidate winning.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#448

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

The President and the courts didn't neuter Congress. Congress neutered itself.

Over the past several decades, Congress has been less and less able to pass legislation, less and less able to work with itself, eventually even unable to pass a budget (which is their most fundamental, basic duty). How many years of the last decade has Congress passed a budget? That would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.

Congress is broken, not because the President broke it, not because the courts broke it, but because party politics and the primary system broke it.

The President has ruled more and more by executive order, partly by overreach, and partly by necessity, because Congress can't or won't do their job.

I don't think that the courts stripped power from Congress by overturning Chevron. They stripped it from the executive branch.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#449

Post by tristan957 »

rayiner wrote: post #142
MBCook wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes a fair vote, which is arguable. Between Gerrymandering, purging voter roles, suits over who is allowed on the ballot, ID checks and associated issues I’m not sure it’s so clear cut. He won under the conditions the election was performed under. That’s clear. I’m not sure I could call those fair after years of attacks on people’s voting rights.

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…

Gerrymandering can have an effect, but I'm not sure how to measure it. Gerrymandering contributes to voter disenfranchisement. If you have been disenfranchised for the 3 years before the presidential election, why would you then choose to participate in the elections in the 4th year? To me, that number has to be non-zero, but it isn't obvious if it's anything significant.

For instance, how many Democrat supporters just don't show up to the polls in Texas because they feel that their vote doesn't matter due to gerrymandering in the state?

I think the issue here is that we are trying to apply logic when the American voter tends to be very emotional.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#450

Post by myvoiceismypass »

curt15 wrote: post #184
growlNark wrote: post #163

[flagged]

>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.

That amendment that you reference, while it did finally pass in 92, was originally introduced in 1789 by the first Congress.
Post reply on HN