Tariffs

[Analog Kid]

Well, in the case of the US, that country--my country--was always the aggressor, never the victim, when it came to expansionism and territorial acquisition. Just ask the Mexicans about that. (Hello, Texas!)

BTW, since we're on the topic of immigration, I always like to think of what our Latino neighbors to our south have to say about that:

"We didn't cross the border; the border crossed us."

[coppercone2]

its a little more complicated then that, sometimes there was some justification for those expansions, akin to fighting terrorists. At least that's what the official reason was for some Mexican incursions. To fight the banditos. Not much has changed in that regard, they are called Cartels now. And there was kind of a Cuba thing going on, with supposed foreign sponsored coups (kind of like Germany causing uprisings) and such.

i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition

But in the end it kind of has that 'special military operation' vibe to it. But its important to know how they were BSing in Washington about these kind of things

Same thing that seems to happen everywhere, some brave settlers settle where they probably should not have settled and then some force terrorizes them (some rape, pillage, threats, etc) and then there is a over blown response due to lack of police/justice systems in the area , and then it escalates because two groups of politicians get some kind of information about it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandit_War

I think it would be very hard to get accurate information due to the intense amounts of 'yellow journalism' that all the major powers had going on around that time, which probobly lead to the world wars


It is interesting how ugly borders can be. Another one that comes to mind is the border between Albania and Yugoslavia during the cold war (two communist states). They had state sponsored 'banditos' too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian%E2%80%93Yugoslav_border_conflict_(1948%E2%80%931954)


And of course you have the problems created by irregulars ,  i.e. 'bushwackers' in old terminology that were used to kind of like manage... not very populated or important territories during a time of war. The politicians officially settled a matter and then you had kind of extreme groups that had little communication and discipline who would keep doing whatever they were doing because it was profitable. During a time of war they got support and then when it ended you essentially had people with no skills that turned into a militarized mafia that ended up causing severe trouble and reigniting things... very similar to al quida or whatever other organizations you can think of but in the 1800's

[Monkeh]

Tell me when was the last time you had an occupying army, like the russian army, in your country. And then some crackhead online calling you racist because you didn't want to voluntarily invite those people back into your country as immigrants?
And then you guys are calling the fights done by your grandfathers as "your fight". Once again, which one of you, personally, had to face foreign solders within your country.

What the hell does that have to do with anything we were talking about?

[Sal Ammoniac]

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously that Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional. All of them.

It remains to be seen if this sticks and the tariffs go away.

[Analog Kid]

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously that Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional. All of them.

It remains to be seen if this sticks and the tariffs go away.

... including refunds for tariffs already collected so far ...

[DaneLaw]

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously that Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional. All of them.

It remains to be seen if this sticks and the tariffs go away.

As I recall, it ain't all of them, the  25 % punitive tariff that the clown had imposed on steel and aluminum, as well as cars & car parts, remains.
At least that was my impression when I saw the ruling from the Federal Trade Commission.

[Smokey]

And the elimination of the de minimis was a separate executive order that looks like it's not voided by that court ruling.  Which sucks.

I have some boards that just shipped from JLCPCB.  I'm glad I didn't have them pay the tariffs, but I have no idea what's going to happen now.  Fun stuff.

[pope]

The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled unanimously that Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional. All of them.

It remains to be seen if this sticks and the tariffs go away.

As I recall, it ain't all of them, the  25 % punitive tariff that the clown had imposed on steel and aluminum, as well as cars & car parts, remains.
At least that was my impression when I saw the ruling from the Federal Trade Commission.

That's correct.

[TimFox]

The court ruled that the statute used by the President to impose most of his new tariffs did not mention or allow tariffs to be imposed by executive action.

[PlainName]

That probably doesn't matter. I think they are just playing for time while they whip up outrage about the unelected courts, and then they will ignore the ruling. They've done this before (and then been in contempt for not playing the game further) and, as far as I can tell, gotten away with it.

[tom66]

Not clear how they could ignore the ruling in this case because how would they enforce it?

Danger politics: but, if, for example, they order an executive agency to deport someone and the court says "no you can't do that", and they do it anyway, then the court is mostly powerless to sanction the government further.  It really is just a gentleman's agreement and/or precedent at play there.  (In -theory- Congress could impeach POTUS, but that won't practically happen.)

In the tariffs case, the government is setting a tax on goods to be paid after they land on US shores.  This tax is collected through couriers like UPS.  Those couriers could well say "no, we're not collecting them, as they've been ruled unlawful". What would the power of the government be in this instance? I suppose they could act to halt all imports by blockading ports, which is a nuclear option (and would be incredibly disruptive), but they can't force a company to pay CBP if it is not lawful for them to be paid.

It's a legal quagmire but I think this does kill the tariffs for now, at least, which is why the stock market has rallied a little.  Of course, Congress might be convinced to pass tariff legislation, but that will take many more months before anything happens.

[PlainName]

There are plenty of examples where Trump and his henchmen have gone after those that have displeased him. They will find some way of making life very hard for those companies or persons that flout his handed-down law. Look at Harvard, for instance, where they (alone out of all the universities at the start) stood up to him, and how he has attacked on whatever front his folks can make up.

Only way to stop him enforcing tariffs anyway is for the cops to nick him for contempt of court. And they ain't going to do that.

[Analog Kid]

That probably doesn't matter. I think they are just playing for time while they whip up outrage about the unelected courts, and then they will ignore the ruling.

Hah; "unelected courts"? What fucking hypocrisy!
One of the three judges who issued that ruling was appointed by ... Donald Trump!

Which goes to show that judges are not wind-up automata that will always obey the wishes of their appointer.

[TimFox]

The other two judges were appointed by Reagan and Obama.
https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/about-court
This court has not been well-known up to now, but they have jurisdiction over these matters.
Of course, the Constitution declares that Congress is in charge of taxes and tariffs.
Article I, Section 8 states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, … but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
However, Congress has passed several statutes delegating some power to the President to deal with tariffs, presumably to allow negotiation with other countries.

[jpanhalt]

There are plenty of examples where Trump and his henchmen have gone after those that have displeased him. They will find some way of making life very hard for those companies or persons that flout his handed-down law. Look at Harvard, for instance, where they (alone out of all the universities at the start) stood up to him, and how he has attacked on whatever front his folks can make up.

Only way to stop him enforcing tariffs anyway is for the cops to nick him for contempt of court. And they ain't going to do that.

Define plenty. Please list plenty of cases.  He has done none of that compared to Democrats like Alvin Bragg and Letitia James who prosecuted Trump for almost everything including removing the tags from his mattresses.  It now appears Letitia James is guilty of even worse mortgage fraud.

[jpanhalt]

That probably doesn't matter. I think they are just playing for time while they whip up outrage about the unelected courts, and then they will ignore the ruling.

Hah; "unelected courts"? What fucking hypocrisy!
One of the three judges who issued that ruling was appointed by ... Donald Trump!

Which goes to show that judges are not wind-up automata that will always obey the wishes of their appointer.

Are any Federal judges elected?  Perhaps you need to give your definition of hypocrisy.

[Analog Kid]

That probably doesn't matter. I think they are just playing for time while they whip up outrage about the unelected courts, and then they will ignore the ruling.

Hah; "unelected courts"? What fucking hypocrisy!
One of the three judges who issued that ruling was appointed by ... Donald Trump!

Which goes to show that judges are not wind-up automata that will always obey the wishes of their appointer.

Are any Federal judges elected?  Perhaps you need to give your definition of hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is "judges appointed by my guy (Mr. MAGA in this case) always do the right thing, whereas all those Obama-appointed judges are just woke-infected worthless libs who will always do the wrong thing".

[Analog Kid]

There are plenty of examples where Trump and his henchmen have gone after those that have displeased him. They will find some way of making life very hard for those companies or persons that flout his handed-down law. Look at Harvard, for instance, where they (alone out of all the universities at the start) stood up to him, and how he has attacked on whatever front his folks can make up.

Only way to stop him enforcing tariffs anyway is for the cops to nick him for contempt of court. And they ain't going to do that.

Define plenty. Please list plenty of cases.  He has done none of that compared to Democrats like Alvin Bragg and Letitia James who prosecuted Trump for almost everything including removing the tags from his mattresses.  It now appears Letitia James is guilty of even worse mortgage fraud.

No; he (Trump) has done and is doing all of that, and more. Look at his attempts to ding certain law firms (coincidentally the very ones who dared stand up to him), and his attempts to harm Harvard U.
And yes, the Dems did the same damn things before him, all that "lawfare" and the attempts to keep him off the ballot (Colorado).
Both parties are despicable here.

[TimFox]

That probably doesn't matter. I think they are just playing for time while they whip up outrage about the unelected courts, and then they will ignore the ruling.

Hah; "unelected courts"? What fucking hypocrisy!
One of the three judges who issued that ruling was appointed by ... Donald Trump!

Which goes to show that judges are not wind-up automata that will always obey the wishes of their appointer.

Are any Federal judges elected?  Perhaps you need to give your definition of hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is "judges elected by my guy (Mr. MAGA in this case) always do the right thing, whereas all those Obama-appointed judges are just woke-infected worthless libs who will always do the wrong thing".

By law, US Federal judges are appointed (for life) by the sitting President, but need to be confirmed by the Senate.
They can be removed involuntarily only by impeachment and conviction (there are a few successful convictions, including bribery, drunkenness, conflict of interest, etc.).
Keeping score, from 1804 through 2010, 4 acquittals, 8 convictions, 3 resignations before trial.
Until recently (by the time standards of an old man), it seemed that Senate confirmations dealt mainly with credentials, and it was considered uncouth to ask a candidate how he would rule on a given controversy.                                                           

[tszaboo]

There are plenty of examples where Trump and his henchmen have gone after those that have displeased him. They will find some way of making life very hard for those companies or persons that flout his handed-down law. Look at Harvard, for instance, where they (alone out of all the universities at the start) stood up to him, and how he has attacked on whatever front his folks can make up.

Only way to stop him enforcing tariffs anyway is for the cops to nick him for contempt of court. And they ain't going to do that.

You are looking at it wrong. The executive branch of the government is elected to actualize the policies they promised during the election.
If there are parts of the executive branch that are not doing this, but they just work full time to derail this process, they should be removed from office. Because that's not their job. It happened before (in the first admin)and that's why we had stuff like in the twitter files, when the FBI spent their time getting someone else elected, instead of catching criminals (aka their job). And this is just one example.

Now this is where the separation of power comes in, and I think it's a bit of a pickle. Because if one of the other two branches of the government is not cooperating, and doing what the election promised, then what?
Can a random judge from wherever invalidate the president's order?

[dietert1]

If a government isn't bound by laws anymore, and they can do what they want (like deporting or killing citizens and attacking their neighbor countries) pretending a national emergency, that's called fascism and it is incompatible with democracy. In general elections are not meant to terminate democracy, except if people elect a notorious liar and convicted criminal for president, that is what may happen and maybe it was meant like that.
Any decent government changes the law if necessary. You don't change a law by breaking it.

Regards, Dieter

[.RC.]

If a government isn't bound by laws anymore, and they can do what they want (like deporting or killing citizens and attacking their neighbor countries) pretending a national emergency, that's called fascism and it is incompatible with democracy.

Fascism, communism, socialism, capitalism, etc.

They are all just words people use to justify their opinions or positions.  They will scream hysterically about some 'ism, while preaching the virtues of another that is equally bad.

As for democracy, giving everyone an equal say is equally as good as giving no one a say. 

[dietert1]

This isn't about whether a judge can overrule the elected president, but whether the president can change the constitution by breaking it. The judge found that the current president violated the constitution.

[dietert1]

In most civilized countries changes to the constitution require a larger majority. In the US that would be a two-thirds vote that the current administration doesn't have. That's why they try to change it by breaking it. Seems like the current president didn't understand the oath of inauguration.

[tszaboo]

that's called fascism

No it's not. Stop the name calling, it's just a cheap way to dog whistle the woke crowd, and to silence the opposition.

This isn't about whether a judge can overrule the elected president, but whether the president can change the constitution by breaking it. The judge found that the current president violated the constitution.

The constitution was changed 27 times. It's probably overdue for a change again, because it currently doesn't fully serve it's purpose.
Meaning there were loopholes in it that allowed the current situation with the swamp.
If fighting situations created by loopholes requires the usage of loopholes, then so be it.