Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Wow. What an articulate, well reasoned, intelligent argument. You have convinced me.
Good. I am glad I was able to get down to your level.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Wow. What an articulate, well reasoned, intelligent argument. You have convinced me.
Good. I am glad I was able to get down to your level.
Originally posted by: Mark
Not doing things the right and legal way has consequences who knew?
Going forward Trump will have to get Congressional approval for most tariffs.
Unfortunately I don't think he will.
This decision was actually pretty narrow.
There are are about five pieces of legislation that allow the president to set tariffs. This decision affects only one of them.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Unfortunately I don't think he will.
This decision was actually pretty narrow.
There are are about five pieces of legislation that allow the president to set tariffs. This decision affects only one of them.
Trump disagrees with you. He is having a real meltdown now that his staff has explained the implications of the ruling to him.
The court said that I'm not allowed to charge even $1! Can't charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA!” Trump raged during an address from the White House.
But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country; in other words, I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country! I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo, I can embargo! I can do anything I want, but I can't charge $1!”
I actually think he did a good job explaining his new limitations.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Good. I am glad I was able to get down to your level.
Actually, LiveFree makes reasoned, articulate arguments and avoids disparaging others, which is more than I can say for you.
Originally posted by: Mark
Trump disagrees with you. He is having a real meltdown now that his staff has explained the implications of the ruling to him.
The court said that I'm not allowed to charge even $1! Can't charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA!” Trump raged during an address from the White House.
But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country; in other words, I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country! I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo, I can embargo! I can do anything I want, but I can't charge $1!”
I actually think he did a good job explaining his new limitations.
He explained the "limitations" under IEEPA - there are other avenues that he can and will use in the future.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Yes, and it doesn't drag Trump off to prison, which is where anyone else would wind up after stealing $200 billion.
I'm frankly surprised that SCOTUS even murmured a "tsk, tsk." They've been nothing but a Trump appendage.
SCOTUS's decision didn't cite the Constitutional law that reserves the power to regulate commerce to Congress. That tells me that they're in agreement with Trump, that the Constitution is toilet tissue and he can violate and ignore it at will. The only decision they could have lawfully made was: "All tariffs not enacted by Congress are illegal."
While I agree that all tariffs not enacted by Congress are unconstitutional the court would not have been able to make that ruling. That was not the question brought before the court.
The IEEPA of 1977 grants the president the power to "regulate" imports during a declared emergency. The question brought before the court was whether the power to "regulate" includes the power to set tariffs.
The blame here is not exclusively with Trump. Congress has used the Constitution as toilet paper every time they passed laws delegating its power to the executive.
We need a court case that challenges the practice of Congress delegating its powers to another branch.
Originally posted by: Mark
Trump disagrees with you. He is having a real meltdown now that his staff has explained the implications of the ruling to him.
The court said that I'm not allowed to charge even $1! Can't charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA!” Trump raged during an address from the White House.
But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country; in other words, I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country! I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo, I can embargo! I can do anything I want, but I can't charge $1!”
I actually think he did a good job explaining his new limitations.
The most ludicrous part of his rant is that he STILL thinks that "other countries" pay his Turdiffs. That means that he still has a fundamental misunderstanding of how tariffs work!
He also persists in the delusion that his powers are/should be unlimited.
Originally posted by: David Miller
He explained the "limitations" under IEEPA - there are other avenues that he can and will use in the future.
Gee, David, why didn't you call Mark a LIAR LIAR LIAR and say he has "TDS"? Getting soft in your old age?
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
While I agree that all tariffs not enacted by Congress are unconstitutional the court would not have been able to make that ruling. That was not the question brought before the court.
The IEEPA of 1977 grants the president the power to "regulate" imports during a declared emergency. The question brought before the court was whether the power to "regulate" includes the power to set tariffs.
The blame here is not exclusively with Trump. Congress has used the Constitution as toilet paper every time they passed laws delegating its power to the executive.
We need a court case that challenges the practice of Congress delegating its powers to another branch.
But such a case would have no chance with the MAGA Trump appendage that SCOTUS is now. The only scenario I can see is if the Democrats regained control of the House, then MAGA would be eager to try to restrict their power. But of course, the same factor that has discouraged the Republipigs from trying to expand their power now would come into play in that scenario: a check imposed on the House would hobble them if and when they regained House control.
If such a case was brought before SCOTUS, who would be the plaintiff(s)? Would verifiable harm have to be alleged? I mean, the entire population of the US as well as every business would be a potential plantiff, but how would that even work? Can an entire branch of government be sued for exceeding its authority?
Once again, the blunders of the Founders are being exposed. A servile Congress that hands its powers over to the chief executive is no check on him whatsoever. Maybe they couldn't imagine a Congress that valued party fealty above the Constitution??
Originally posted by: David Miller
He explained the "limitations" under IEEPA - there are other avenues that he can and will use in the future.
Yea, and I would point you to that second paragraph where Trump did a good job explaining the limitations of those options. So I can only hope he opts to cut off all trade from Canada, Mexico, China, Taiwan and so on ASAP. It is much more efficient to destroy the American economy in one fell swoop rather than one brick at a time like he has been doing. MCGA!
