Posted on 09/17/2025 5:07:55 AM PDT by Miami Rebel
I’ve absolutely zero idea what Plan B might look like.
—
either does anyone else, since the existence of it was just mentioned this morning.
I’d say just a plan B is not enough
—
How can you judge plan that is not enumerated beyond its existence?
About as well as imagining that there is a plan B to begin with.
A person can assume a lot, when there’s nothing but assumptions to go on here.
All the noise about tariffs the fact about them countries stick it to the U.S. yet when we do it it’s somehow a bad deal.
Ignorant in motion.
There is a baseline tariff and tailored tariffs for each country. It is not haphazard at all.
No, more like traitorous globalism in motion.
About as well as imagining that there is a plan B to begin with. A person can assume a lot, when there’s nothing but assumptions to go on here.
—
Well then, we must assume P. Navarro, 47’s senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, was lying ... to follow your argument.
I’m all on board with the POTUS agenda, but man! The price of coffee has nearly doubled!
Oh heavens, a politician lying!?
Of course even a lie can be purposefully placed to lead people around as well.
You seem awfully fixated on argument over mere speculations which are based on nothing tangible.
No, more like greed the democrats let them screw the U.S. for years proving kickbacks do pay off.
Demacoats and Rinos wink and count the cash.
It could be a bad deal. It could be a great deal.
But is it a Constitutional deal?
The Supreme Court is interested only in that question, not in the soundness of the policy.
Coffee and meat. Ground beef in TN $7.99 lb.
I just believe the Constitution and laws have to be followed, And I don't believe that the absolutely unfettered delegation authority that is being claimed under the IEEPA is constitutional.
I believe that separation of powers is the core structural safeguard in the Constitution, but too many conservatives only support that when it is convenient.
I fully support all of President Trump's efforts to rein in administrative agencies, including firing the heads of commissions, etc. I also agree with Supreme Court decisions that have ratcheted back the power of those administrative agencies, especially with the elimination of the Chevron doctrine. In short, I agree with Justice Scalia that these administrative agencies have become sort of junior varsity congresses that isn't authorized under the Constitution.
It is the job of Congress, not administrative agencies to pass laws. End of story.
But it isn't the job of the President to pass laws either, and that's what this claimed delegation does. The whole idea of Congress delegating significant authority to the president is an end run around the Constitution, and destroys separation of powers. I'd much, much rather have a Congress that was gridlocked and did absolutely nothing than a Congress that passed its authority to Presidents to do whatever they want.
You may love that idea now, when it is Republican in power. But you'd be singing a very different tune and if it was President AOC using the powers that you think the presidents should have.
Well, it's at least safe to assume that Plan B isn't as good as Plan A.
Perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye.
The President’s actions regarding the tariffs are popular. The tariff tax increase not possible in the Congress is seemingly accepted by the people.
SCOTUS declares the President’s action to be beyond the scope of the law he cited as permitting his action.
The Congress is then able to immediately legislate the tax increase in accordance with the popular President’s will.
We’ll see.
Over the decades, particularly after the Trade Act of 1930 (Smoot-Hawley), Congress delegated more authority to the President. This was done under the assumption that the President could make trade decisions more nimbly and would be less susceptible to special interest groups.
Laws passed by Congress, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, allow presidents to impose tariffs under specific conditions, like national security threats or unfair trade practices
Congress has delegated tariff authority thru legislation. But you knew that.
I refer to this charade as "inconsequential" because no CEO with half a brain is going to make any major investment decisions for manufacturing products or sourcing raw materials based on a tariff policy that can change by the hour.
The shame of it is that Trump is using Tariffs as a potent Diplomacy tool and is getting great results. If the decision goes against him, Congress needs to keep this arrow in the diplomacy quiver.
Imposing tariffs to ensure balanced trade with every trading partner is retarded. The U.S. cannot possibly maintain balanced trade, for example, with very poor countries that supply us with raw materials and agricultural products that the U.S. doesn't even produce itself, yet can't afford to buy the expensive, advanced manufactured products that the U.S. exports.
"Let's sell a bunch of Ford F-150 pickup trucks and a Blackhawk helicopter to a village in Africa where they pick coffee and cocoa beans by hand for export to the U.S." -- said nobody, ever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.