101–110 of 568 posts
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Isn't that every party currently in power?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A plurality of Americans voted for this government, for better or worse. The courts are one of the primary avenues for the minority to express their will, but they move slowly, although slightly faster than congress.
They voted for an R. To be fair it is hard to argue that they voted for this government when Trump maintained he had nothing to do with these plans outlined in Project 2025 all through the campaign and his approval rating has plummeted as people understand the scope of what has happened.
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.
That isn’t the “point” of our government structure. The constitution deliberately mixes an electorally accountable deliberative body (Congress), an electorally accountable unitary executive (the President), and a judiciary insulated from elections.
As explained in Federalist 70, the executive is unitary and “vigorous,” by design: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed70.asp. Federalist 70 even brings up the example of Roman Dictators to illustrate the need for a strong executive: “Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome.”
What the constitution seeks to avoid is consolidation of all the government’s powers under a single entity. The President is powerful and can act unilaterally, but must stick to exercising executive rather than legislative or judicial powers.
So the real question with tariffs is whether one sees them as more of a general policy or a tool of foreign relations. The former is a power within the deliberative consideration of Congress. The latter sphere of authority is assigned to a singular President.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you are correct. Biden used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trump has used the 1974 act, but he's also used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which is what the trade court just ruled on. My understanding is the Trump admin's strategy of putting a tariff on every country as an opening to negotiations doesn't fly under the 1974 act, which only allows placing tariffs on a country i…
Biden used executive authority on tariffs repeatedly, the same method Trump is using. And you're totally incorrect, Biden maintained the existing IEEPA tariffs on China that were imposed in Trump's first term.
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.
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"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Usually I think saying both-sides is pretty lazy, but has any Congress in the last few decades done anything but delegate more of their authority to someone else? One party always complains about Executive Orders and interference when the other party is President, but then never curtails the power when they get a chance.
Campaign finance
Trading on privileged information
Voting as a bloc and not in favor of their constituents
Being a useless and ignorable vocal opposition when their bloc is not in power, ignoring indiscretions when their bloc is in power
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what sense?
The GOP in congress has struggled, even last election cycle to gather enough votes to take action. They ran through several rounds where they couldn't even pick a house majority leader among their own party. The tariffs would be very difficult considering each of their local concerns.
The GOP controls the house and senate. Congress controls tariffs. If they followed the law congress could make the thing happen. But I don't think think independent thinking is allowed in the GOP, and it might force their hand if they had to actually put it to a vote ...
They have a narrow so small that passing tariffs would still be politically difficult even though they control both chambers, and that is not even considering a filibuster. I hope this judgement stands, however, trade actually works out really well for the US economy and its job market. Yes, we don't often manufacture the thing, but we have huge roles in designing those things and packing them with software. Even Chi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you are correct. Biden used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trump has used the 1974 act, but he's also used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which is what the trade court just ruled on. My understanding is the Trump admin's strategy of putting a tariff on every country as an opening to negotiations doesn't fly under the 1974 act, which only allows placing tariffs on a country i…
Biden used executive authority on tariffs repeatedly, the same method Trump is using. And you're totally incorrect, Biden maintained the existing IEEPA tariffs on China that were imposed in Trump's first term.
[1] https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-Can-President-Impos...
[2] https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2024/biden-ups...
[3] https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/bidens-new-tariffs-h...