While they manipulate and undermine the checks and balances in the country to slowly change the definitions of what is legally acceptable.
Trump's tariffs clearly unconsitutional - discussion and materials
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
I'm pretty sure every liberal looks at it like that...we all know what he just did...and within reason...if really does believe there's lack of effort from his neighbors to secure the border...Mecixo already asked him to reconsider...let's see if Trudeau will follow through and work with Drumph...
Sadly, I don't think we all know at all.
Lots of people don't know what he does.
He doesn't, though.
He is saying it because it is useful to him.
Asking if Trump "believes things" is kind of a mug's game.
That's the problem.
His ask there (well, some of his asks) were things Mexico was already basically doing.
He's also not threatening to annex Mexico.
So much easier to get him to focus elsewhere for a while.
Trump may simply not let him.
After all, his big public ask is clearly bullshit he made up, so it isn't something Trudeau can really give him.
He also seems to have more personal animus towards Trudeau, maybe since Trudeau was around during the first term.
We will have to see what comes out of the talks.
Just like his attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment last week, huh?
That died pretty quickly IIRC.
Here's the link for the case,
I didn't read it carefully. It related to Nixon putting a block on Japanese imports to redress balance of trade issues and the depletion of American monetary reserves. It's a court of appeal level case.
This is pretty clearly where Trump got his idea for the current tariff wars and why he thinks he might get away with it.
If the alleged reason for the crisis is frivolous or clearly bullshit or fake, I don't think the courts will refrain from striking the EO down. Nixon was competent and experienced, even if sketchy and odd in his personal life. It's one thing for a president to read conflicting opinions of whether international balance of trade has reached emergency levels and decide that it indeed has. I don't think any court is going to re read all the same conflicting opinions and then second guess the president's decision
It's another for a president to declare an emergency where none was previously thought to exist and then raise tariffs out of the blue for reasons which appear related only to his own demented ego.
And quite another for the president to allege that a small amount of fentanyl trafficked across the border should be dealt with by massive trade sanctions, unrelated to any law enforcement measures.
So I maintain my earlier opinion, although I note the case you drew to my attention.
Courts could skate around Yoshida pretty easily by simply saying that Trump's methods were disproportionate and not logically related to the emergency that he proclaimed.
I think the last is more likely from a quick scan of Yoshida.
That the president can make up whatever emergency he wants and the court won't question it seems to be in there.
But the court here does seem to reserve the right to say the final methods chosen to deal with it are fucked.
There's a lot in there about keeping the moves within the scope of things Congress has already decided.
So I think that's the angle people might take.
Not that the emergency is inherently bullshit, but that making up random tariff numbers on random things isn't part of the power.
(Thanks for finding the full case.)
Plus putting in judges who will do their duty to the party, not the law.
Not all of it but some of it. Any of it contributes to the overall problem.
But the courts will clearly shut down an EO if the "emergency" is preposterous. "The US is completely closing the border with Canada because a 5 year old girl from Cleveland lost her teddybear in Ontario and Trudeau wouldn't personally go find it for her" won't get you a positive court ruling that an emergency has occurred.
On the other hand, "there was a lot of concern about the trade balance with Japan and Nixon put up an emergency trade block" will create a situation where the courts won't second guess a political decision - very rightly IMO.
AFAIK there was no concern about balance of trade between the US and Canada before 2 weeks ago. No articles about depleting monetary reserves. And Trump is levying tariffs against all trading partners and - in the case of Colombia - clearly because there was a personal spat between 2 presidents.
And now Trump has pivotted back and fore between the law enforcement angle and the balance of trade angle. And also there's a 30-day reprieve based on working together on law enforcement. There's massive inconsistency.
And now it's not an "emergency" any more because there's a 30-day reprieve which which means that Congress can deal with the emergency itself.
It's flimsy as fuck and I think a judge would distinguish Yoshida and injunction the EO.
He wants the border fixed. Tariffs are the threat. It's that simple.
No one really knows how much fentanyl originates from Canada because they can't always trace the origin. So you need to secure all points of entry.
Looks like his threats are working based on the investment Canada is making.
Read my posts, skooby.
"I think that Ireland is infecting Canada with Potato Plague and I decree a 100% tariff on all Irish products. I don't really know how much Potato Plague is coming in, but who GAF?!?!?"
How is asking a question "putting words in other people's mouths"?
Seems to me that the question is one you don't want to or can't answer so rather than answering you go on the attack as a distraction tactic.
Did I get that right?
Cool story bro.
He's trying to stop the flow to address the crisis. Of course people who suffer from TDS will spin that as a bad thing.
Shame on you.
Can anybody explain how 10,000 soldiers or 1,000,000 soldiers will be able to stop 20 lbs of fentanyl getting across the border from Canada?
I was in Williamsburg last Thursday, andAnal searches of all border crossers - man, woman and child!!!!
1. When I passed the border to Buffalo, I was interrogated by American Border Guards
2. When I came back to Niagara, I was interrogated by Canadian Border Guards.
Where and when are the 10,000 Canadian soldiers going to search the travellers anally?
Except the precedent is firmly fixed here that the court can't weight in on whether or not an emergency has occurred.
Now, it is possible something sufficiently ridiculous would make them revisit that question, but "this isn't something a court can decide" does tend to hold a lot of weight in the US system.
It becomes a jurisdiction/standing issue.
I think any court case based on "he had no right to declare an emergency" fails off the bat.
Mind you, any competent court case is going to take multiple angles anyway, so it is kind of moot.
