Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Biden admin not only kept the first Trump admin's China tariffs in place but significantly expanded them under the same law. Was Biden acting like a king or does this analogy only go one way? https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-bi... https://web.archive.org/web/20250101032222/https://www.white... "[The Biden admin intends to use] executive authority"
Are you suggesting what Trump and Biden did are the same thing?
US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
541–550 of 568 posts
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#542Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Biden admin not only kept the first Trump admin's China tariffs in place but significantly expanded them under the same law. Was Biden acting like a king or does this analogy only go one way? https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-bi... https://web.archive.org/web/20250101032222/https://www.white... "[The Biden admin intends to use] executive authority"
It’s almost like you don’t understand the concept of doing things in moderation and abusing a granted privilege - you know, the origin of the phrase “this is why we can’t have nice things”. That is, what is happening now is different, and we all know it is different, hence the unanimous court ruling.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#543Not 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?
The people want a king.
It's Democracy going exactly the way how Plato already described it.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#544Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 addr…
> 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.
Notably, we do not address material needs. It's hard to give a damn about speech, assembly, religion, and whatever people consider "rights" to mean, if we let people live on the street. It's hard to imagine an america that would feed its own people if we didn't produce such a ridiculous amount of food our food wastage is measured on the proportions of entire country's consumption.
Such an observation necessarily implies I'm going to view the constitution as broken. Who gives a damn about speech when we can't house our neighbors? The cost of housing would be quite small compared to the damage of stepping over a person to enter your workplace or home. It's just simple cruelty that persists such behavior.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#545Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#546Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like people are just closing their eyes and trusting in leader. I'm part of that 40% (and probably substantially more given contemporary pollsters difficulty in reaching people like me [1]), and I think my rationale is quite sound. The fundamental reason is that we are creating an unsustainable system. When Germany chose to limit imports of Russian gas, they wrecked their economy. Many people, blinded by hin…
> including the US most obviously, has excesses of dependencies on other countries Do we have excessive dependencies on other countries (Madagascar) for vanilla? How about for chocolate? Are tariffs supposed to stimulate our own chocolate and vanilla production? How does that work if you don't have the right climate for these things? I suppose we could grow vanilla in greenhouses, but would that really be worthwhile…
This is, in large part, why sanctions wars are playing with fire given our current status of trade. We, with "we" being most of 'advanced' economies, export discretionary/luxury goods and import critical/core ones. Even if the discretionary goods have a far higher $ value, they really just don't matter - it's those core goods that keep the gears of a nation turning.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#547Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 br…
The courts are mostly responsible for breaking Congress. Why? Citizens United. This is the case that decided "money equals speech" and allowed for unlimited dark money to be spent buying Congress.
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#548Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have this backwards. IEEPA gives the president the authority to use tariffs as a way to achieve a foreign policy goal. What's the foreign policy goal of the blanket tariffs across every country? Hint: There isn't one. Its stated goals are revenue generation (Congress's job) and domestic economic development (not foreign policy)
I’m not arguing Trumps use of tariffs was legal (in fact I’m of an opinion it’s obviously not). Just arguing there are cases where executive have rights to set tariffs and it does fall under foreign policy in those cases. As of blanket tariffs across all countries not being foreign policy I tend to disagree, it’s a policy of protectionism. I just don’t think this particular foreign policy falls under executive oversi…
The case when tariffs fall under foreign policy is only when used to achieve a foreign policy objective only in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat".
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#549Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the Dems are still down three votes until those seats are filled.
Why would they ever be empty for long? Isn't it already determined who gets to join?
Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal
#550Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FT is reporting it.
Your bigger problem here is "accomplishing foreign policy objectives using tariffs" is not an authority Congress has delegated to the executive branch, and, in fact, this cuts against his argument (that he is instead responding to an "economic emergency", despite the performance of our economy and the fact that he's responding to conditions that we have been working with for generations). You have somehow put yoursel…
And I never said the tariff power belongs to “wholly to the executive.” My view is that economic warfare between countries falls within the scope of Congress’s delegation of tariff authority. And under existing precedent, that’s a sufficient “intelligible principle” to avoid non-delegation problems.