Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most of them seem to be hand-wavy executive actions, full of caveats and outs, sitting upon the unstable legal foundation of illegal tariffs, dubious legal theories, and front-running the courts. Signed by an executive with a long history of dishonesty, reneging on deals, and criminality. Fair but then that criticism goes back pretty far and is bipartisan. I don't think it's fair to single Trump out for this. Congr…
Of course it is fair to single out Trump. No other president has pursued this strategy. In the case of Canada, there was the original free trade agreement (Reagan), NAFTA (Bush I/Clinton), and even CUSMA (Trump I). All approved by Congress. They didn't implement illegal tariffs, make up fake emergencies (eg fentanyl across the northern border), and do the 51st state/Governor Trudeau stuff. More broadly, the "he is ju…
> In the case of Canada, there was the original free trade agreement (Reagan), NAFTA (Bush I/Clinton), and even CUSMA (Trump I). All approved by Congress.
Why bother asking me questions like this if you know the answer?
The legality of the tariffs is questionable but just calling them illegal as though it's a moral judgement I cast out as nonsense and not worthy of discussion.
None of these points detract from what I wrote which is that Congress under both Republicans and Democrats have continued to be dysfunctional and delegate more and more of their responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branches.