White House insists Trump has authority to block American companies from doing business in China

Yahoo News ^ | August 25th, 2019 | Kadia Tubman

[Mariner]

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow asserted President Trump’s threat to block trade between private Americans businesses and China, saying he has “emergency economic power authority” to do so.

“Do you believe that the president does have the authority to block private businesses from investing in China?” CBS News' Margaret Brennan asked Kudlow on “Face the Nation” Sunday.

“Ultimately, he does have authority,” responded Kudlow. “It’s an emergency economic power authority,” he said, adding that Trump “is not intending to” block trade with China at this time.

Amid an escalating trade war, Trump in a series of angry tweets Friday “ordered” American companies “to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing our companies HOME and making your products in the USA.”

[Poison Pill]

You make it sound like the opposition does not already do what it wants

Obama wanted to ban bump stocks as machine guns. He didn't do it because ATF told him he couldn't under the regs. Then Trump comes along and does it anyway. So now there's precedent. Now the regs alone won't stop them. Trump is opening doors that will never be closed. He's too short sighted to see it or doesn't care to see it. Everyone on this board cheering this government by emergency crap will scream like stuck pigs when the next Democrat president declares a "gun violence emergency".

[Rashputin]

Do something and force those opposed to fight in in court for a few years while at the same time what was done is having an impact, often an impact that is extremely difficult to rollback.

It's a tactic that's worked very well for anti-American democrats for decades and I see no reason why Trump shouldn't be smart enough to use their own tactics against the globalists and free traitors.

Especially just because little twits who go along to get along while the country is destroyed are having snit fits about the finer points on enumerated powers. That never bothers the same bastards when a President exceeds his authority in a way that gets them something they want.

[Jim W N]

But unconstitutional laws are null and void and should be ignored and rejected.

[Jim W N]

No, just because it has to do with “commerce” doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. Correct and accurate application of the Constitution to legislation is by reading the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.

The Commerce Clause (CC) was meant to remove barriers to free trade among states and abroad and ensure safety from imminent threats in international trade. The ratifiers of the Constitution NEVER intended the feds to assume the totalitarian powers they have now in the name of the CC.

[Jim W N]

Explain.

[grumpygresh]

The next Dem will cut off Israel.

The support of Constutional principles should take precedence over policy aims or individuals. Leftists only use the Constitution when it suits their purposes.

So, don’t be suprised if some Dems don’t care what Trump does because when they get in, they will abuse powers repeatedly.

[rollo tomasi]

I would think that Trump has some type of agreement/allies in the trade war to soften the blow that is incoming. If not, Trump is on a course to crash the economy with no survivors (Even the Protectionist brigade will be consumed by extreme labor costs demanded by “the People” to sustain their quality of life preferences, lol).

[Okeydoker]

Dont sound like one.

[Jim W N]

Yeah that’s because I wasn’t duped in law school like many, like you probably, into thinking that “Constitutional Law” actually taught the Constitution. All it teaches is Supreme Court Rulings and calling it Constitutional law. The Supreme Court stopped basing their rulings on rational constitutional application around 1900. I was old enough to know better. Law is my second career.

Also unlike most lawyers, I’m not left-leaning, hate the 80%+ unconstitutional portion of the federal government, and stand for the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended.

[Okeydoker]

Lawyers deal with the law the way the courts interpret it, not the way they wish it was, or the way they think it should be. You must not have had any clients if your version of the law is not what the rest of the legal profession and judiciary say the law is.

If you were a judge and wished to dissent on what the law should be you would be better off than practice law by interpreting your version rather than the courts holdings.

[GodAndCountryFirst]

Trump’s power to PROTECT AMERICA is virtually limitless. Trump can do whatever he deems necessary to counter threats to national security.

[trebb]

The Congress granted POTUS the power and never rescinded the Act...Trump isn’t going rogue and trampling the Constitution.
Don’t get yer panties wound too tight over the trade wars - Trump will win those too and you won’t be out in the street starving to death....he understands things much better than you as your post proves...he never blamed China for “all our economic woes”, he’s pulling a Walmart by saying that if you steal from us we will prosecute...and they been stealing....bigly.
To say we shouldn’t “prosecute” would make us like them judges that keep letting illegal thugs out to keep committing their crimes...

[poconopundit]

It’s like clockwork. Just at the moment that China appears to gain the upperhand, you have the G7 summit where Japan agrees to buy all the corn that China reneged on buying.

And a mysterious roundtable appears where the leaders of African nations are attending. China is not going to pressure the rest of the world over precious metals from Africa.

Finally a Chinese ship loaded with tons of fentanyl is discovered in Mexico.

The Chicoms have egg foo yung on their faces this morning. Go, Trump, Go!

[Jim W N]

The Federal Government is bound by the Supreme Law of the Land , the Constitution (Art. IV, Cl 2). As the leading constitutional scholar of our time, Judge Robert Bork said accurate application of the Constitution requires reading it as written and originally understood and intended. As Judge Bork also pointed out in works like, The Tempting Of America, beginning around 1900, the Supreme Court has generally swayed way far from basing their decisions on anything recognizable as constitutionally-based reasoning.

Federal Judges are bound by the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. The Constitution is not too long or complicated for the average Joe to get a grasp of it. Since around the beginning of the 20th Century, the Leftist Establishment has deliberately kept the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence and the Bible) from being taught early in schools. So our population has little understanding of their God-given freedoms and their protection thereof by the Constitution.

Law school is supposed to teach you the law. The Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. Unconstitutional federal laws, of which we have many, are null and void and should be rejected and stuck down by federal judges. But judges generally have gone off the rails supporting the relentless Leftist move to making the Federal Government including the Supreme Court itself, a totalitarian power - absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution as written, intended by our Founders.

How effective I am as a lawyer or how many clients I have is not the point here. The point here is doing what it takes to restore our Free Constitutional Republic. It's the good fight of freedom and faith. I don't buy the legal profession's acquiescence to federal tyranny and I never will. Neither did Robert Bork and he didn't do so badly. But even Bork got "borked" by the likes of despicable Ted Kennedy when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. So be it. God bless him. "Give me liberty or give me death."

[Jim W N]

The Congress granted POTUS the power and never rescinded the Act.

Does that make it constitutional? Because Congress passed a law??

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land

U.S. Constitution Art IV, Cl 2.

To be valid, a federal law MUST be constitutional. otherwise it is null and void. Either we are a Free Constitutional Republic under the Rule of Law (the Constitution) or we are a third-world oligarchy ruled by the dictates and tyranny of man's whims according to the mode-o-day. I'll fight for the former.

If you don't get your panties in a wad now about the theft of your God-given freedoms protected by the Constitution then don't bother when you lose your freedoms to tyranny without a whimper - only one election away. Sad.

[a little elbow grease]

"I think Kudlow should have checked with some of the constitutional scholars on this board before making such a bold statement (/s)"

__________

I think someone in MLB "should have checked with" someone about those milkmen uniforms before using them. They were gross.

Watching those Cubs and Mets games, I couldn't stop from thinking about the old days in the 50's when you asked the milkman at the door for some extra butter and cream.

;-)

[JonPreston]

What nonsense, both the unis and the effort. Tough when good pitching is wasted but the Braves are a better team. Oh well, bring on the Cubs!

[trebb]

Okay - what does the Constitution say about trade and foreign policy?

[Jim W N]

I’ll ask you a question and if you answer I’ll answer yours.

Do you think the Founders and ratifiers of the Constitution contemplated giving the Federal Government unlimited, totalitarian powers in any area including commerce?

[trebb]

I don’t believe they expected the States to run foreign policy - including trade with foreign nations....why are weapons sales OK to regulate between nations and not other inter-nation trade?
Now, where does the Constitution say, or even address, that such trade and other foreign policy is left up to the States?