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

451–460 of 568 posts

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#451

Post by [deleted] »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #441
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#452

Post by blackjack_ »

synergy20 wrote: post #277

It's interesting. Nearly all orders from the executive branch are banned by some federal judge/court now(there are about 100 of federal courts, any one will do). While I don't agree with all the orders, the power of a random federal judge who can issue a nationwide ban relatively easily seems a little too much. To the point that the president is pretty much useless.

Turns out, the “executive” in executive branch, means it is in charge of executing the law. It is the legislative branch that makes laws. So yes, the judicial branch can stop the executive branch from “making law” because that is how the separation of powers works.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#453

Post by ajross »

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.

Or more formally: "findings of fact" are part of the purview of the judiciary, definitionally. As always wikipedia does a good job here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#454

Post by wqaatwt »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #433
wqaatwt wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The average tariff on US goods applied by the EU is 4.1% IIRC Canada was significantly lower. So having “some sort of a tariff” isn’t that meaningful on its own.

It’s impossible to get the effective tariff rate because everyone works around them with VATs and random things like movie ticket taxes for foreign films that are effective tariffs but not officially counted as such.

> around them with VATs

That’s such an absurd and nonsensical thing to say. How did you come up with it?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#456

Post by palmotea »

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.

> Facts are still different than opinions, that statute doesn't give him unchecked power to declare any crazy idea as fact.

I don't know about the president, but IIRC, juries have a quite wide latitude decide what facts they find ("In Anglo-American–based legal systems, a finding of fact made by the jury is not appealable unless clearly wrong to any reasonable person", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact).

Saying "whenever the President shall find as a fact" seems like it's giving the president the authority to determine what the "facts" are, and not putting any conditions on how he does that or subjecting them to second-guessing.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#457

Post by paulddraper »

wlesieutre wrote: post #137
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…

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"

“Whenever the President shall find as a fact”

That’s the prerequisite to the lawful exercise of power.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#458

Post by AnimalMuppet »

blobbers wrote: post #339
EthanHeilman wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this how checks and balances is supposed to work? Yes, check and balances assume a conservative* theory of government in which politicians should be restrained and changes should be require overwhelming support to implement. *- not conservative in the sense of political ideology, but conservative in the sense of attempting to conserve.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control." This is starting to sound like `Wool`

> White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller said to X, "The judicial coup is out of control."

So? That's the same overheated rhetoric they trot out every time the courts rule against Trump. It's pretty tired by now. It's like they can't even come up with a new set of inflammatory adjectives; they're always reaching for the the same old ones.

The White House deputy chief of staff making a post on X has exactly zero to do with whether the decision was right or wrong.

In particular, the Trump camp acts like every time the courts rule on the legality of Trump's actions it's an overreach of judicial authority. They either failed Civics 101, or they want everyone else to forget what it said. This is the courts' job.

> This is starting to sound like `Wool`

?

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#459

Post by paulddraper »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #366
siliconc0w wrote: post #180

I wonder if this means businesses can request the courts order the government to repay their unconstitutionally levied duties - especially when it meant it basically destroyed their ability to do business.

I still can't find evidence of anyone that has actually paid tariffs - nothing seems to be 3x more expensive compared to before the tariffs supposedly kicked in.

?!??

You must not have looked hard.

Merchants have paid tariffs.

Albeit only for a short period of time.

And even if margin was 0, almost nothing would 3x, since the the tariffs were not (quite) that high.

Re: US Trade Court finds Trump tariffs illegal

#460

Post by Topfi »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #433
wqaatwt wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The average tariff on US goods applied by the EU is 4.1% IIRC Canada was significantly lower. So having “some sort of a tariff” isn’t that meaningful on its own.

It’s impossible to get the effective tariff rate because everyone works around them with VATs and random things like movie ticket taxes for foreign films that are effective tariffs but not officially counted as such.

I was unaware EU goods are exempt from VAT over here. When did that change?
Post reply on HN