[dsc]

“Tariffs require Congressional action, at the very least in withdrawing from existing treaties.”

Well, golly gee, he’ll have a Republican senate and house. /Good-natured ribbing.

“But he can’t simply declare a tariff on imports from China.”

Reagan saved Harley-Davidson with a tariff on motorcycles, but I don’t know what the mechanism was. All I can find on the Internet are the moronic droolings of leftards intent on rewriting history. Here’s a sample: “Last spring, the import duties on large motorcycles were raised drastically. By any economic criterion, the new tariff is counterproductive, and the Reagan administration was fully aware of it. The decision is thus an interesting case study in the political economy of protectionism.”

And, again, “When President Reagan imposed a 100 percent tariff on selected Japanese electronics in 1987, he and the press gave the impression that this was an act of desperation. Pictured was a long-forbearing president whose patience was exhausted by the recalcitrant and conniving Japanese. (True) After trying for years to elicit some fairness out of them, went the story, the usually good-natured president had finally had enough. (Also true.)

Clearly these two imbeciles have no idea what’s going on. They make it sound like Reagan imposed the tariff by fiat. Is that false?

“It implies a lack of knowledge of the legitimate functions of the legislative and judicial branches.”

That’s okay with me. He’s not a political-class fewmet, so why would he have studied that stuff? Character is so much more important that one would be justified in saying that in this two-thousand and sixteenth year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ nothing else matters in the least.

We must have a man who is a better man than the men in our repulsively immoral political class. Fortunately, that’s not difficult. To find a worse man you have to look at Jeffrey Dahmer and John Gacy.

[SJackson]

Usually these "non legislative" tariffs are authorized, under specific conditions, in existing legislation or treaties, which are also the law of the land. There are also various quasi judicial agencies which can impose punative tariffs like the United States Court of International Trade and United States International Trade Commission. Both over a century old. As well as international courts. But these would be over specific complaints, like dumping or theft of intellectual property. Neither they or the President can impose arbitrary tariff, there has to be a violation.

I looked up the Reagan/Harley Davidson tariff. Long time ago and I'm sure the treaties have changed. It was signed by President Reagan, but on the recommendation of the International Trade Commission, which determined that Harley Davidson was harmed by Japanese competition coming from four firms. The reason appears to be economic damage to Harley from imports, no charges of dumping. I don't know if that's still enough. It's important to note these are reactions to specific violations. Harley had to prove their case. The article notes US auto manufacturers made the same claim and lost. And there is recourse in US and international courts after the decision. Reagan signed it, but the action was undertaken by Harley and won in the ITC first. Not exactly a Presidential prerogative.

There's probably room for actions like this relative to China. There should certainly be a Congressional moratorium on news trade deals until after the election, but where there are substantial existing agreements, thinking NAFTA, it's a long struggle.