Posted on 05/31/2025 4:02:36 AM PDT by karpov
Just more horse manure from the globalists and the WSJ, which are becoming as big an enemy as the Democrats.
The, he is blind to evil, is a statement referring to Karpov, not Trump. Sorry, if my statement was not understood as being that. I knew what I meant so I assumed that I was being clear, even though I know better than to make that assumption, even if that assumption was not really taken into consideration. 🙂👍
No real clue who you are talking about
It's not used as being a pejorative remark, for I agree with him being a wrecking ball that destroys that which is destroying this nation to replace it with what will help this country and hopefully save her, which I still believe is possible.
The Courts are not the Supreme Branch of the government either. But Trump does not ignore the courts either, he works within the constitution so that the courts get it right that the president not only has the power, but the responsibility to protect the nation from threats both from within as well external.
On the court’s recent tariff case, Trump lashed out - very wrongly and in error - at the federalist society and Leonardo Leo for having failed him with bad advice on judicial picks. He even implied they were responsible for the one judge he Trump had nominated among the trade courts’ three judge unanimous panel that decided against him. Yet that judge was not promoted by either the federalist society or Leonardo Leo. It was promoted to Trump by his own trade negotiator - Robert Lighthizer.
Trump’s anger should be directed at the lawyers who worked on his tariff executive order, which used a “national emergency law’. How () can trade balances that have been running deficits for decades suddenly be a “national emergency”, and (2) did the national emergency law provide unrestricted presidential power over tariffs? Even the Conservative judges did not think so.
Meanwhile there was a better law a 1974 trade law, with a provision, Section 301, which allows for broad presidential powers over trade “due to unfair trade practices” which can easily apply to other nations tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
Trump’s lawyers chose the wrong law for his tariff EO. But Trump goes and blames others for his mistake.
Often with Trump, when he errors, it is not the goal, but the means he chooses.
You should be smart enough to know I didn't say that.
Congress does set boundaries.
For example, Congress established the IRS to collect taxes and the laws regarding tax collection. The President's executive power does not extend into ordering the IRS to stop collecting taxes and start approving drugs.
Same regarding any other federal agency or department.
Where does the power of the other two branches of government stop??
That's for the courts to decide. It's called Constitutional jurisprudence. The Supreme Court often rules on whether an action is legislative or executive in nature, and whether Congress of the President has overstepped their powers.
The President is neither a puppet nor a dictator.
Although Democrats and Republicans often wish the President were a dictator -- when their own guy is in office.
Well, yeah, actually it does.
For instance, the President can't say, "I don't like the FBI, so I won't spend any money allocated to the FBI."
That would not be an "executive" decision. It would abolish an agency established and funded by Congress, and so the courts would likely rule it a "legislative" act.
No, it doesn't. Article I, Section 8 gives that power to Congress.
You said:
"...The financial powerhouse that was created in this nation wasn't created by free trade. It was created by the atmosphere that encouraged & provided the ability to create innovations..."
That is mostly true simply because we haven't had international "free trade" for nearly a century at least, and probably more. But we have had "free trade" internally, with fifty different "countries" (since it is illegal to levy tariffs internally between states) and boy, look what that has done for us.
And one more thing...your last paragraph was SPOT ON:
"...Regulations have stifled that ability, and free trade has only allowed the world to take advantage of the stupidity government has enacted o protect those who are in control of their money making niche & stifle that innovation process. They did so for them to support them & enrich them both. Trump is a wrecking ball that is trying to change that government/business relationship that is very similar to the fascist model that Mussolini had set up...."
I have long said that Over-Regulation is very much akin to allowing barnacles to encrust the hull of a sleek warship. They inhibit the ability to maneuver, they slow it down, they reduce the range, and in the end, will result in the weakening and destruction of that ship.
That is figuratively the same thing Over-Regulation does to an economy.
Your response to me was an excellent one.
Birth right citizenship is the perfect example of judicial ruling that the 14th amendment provide that all born with in the nations borders are automatically granted birth right citizenship, I suppose in your mind that ruling is also correct, even though citizenship is decided by the legislature. The president that allowed that ruling to stand, I believe it was FDR, was wrong, because he allowed the courts to be supreme, when he had the authority & the responsibility to protect the nation. I also blame the legislature that didn't raise an issue with the ruling, but then FDR wielded great power by virtue of his support among the voters, many of them who knew no better than do you.
Heck I even debated with a guy here who claimed that he worked for state that basically claimed that the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the offices of President & Vice President was no longer relevant. He's the prefect federal worker, who he himself doesn't understand the constitution.
While that is true now, that wasn't always the case. I believe it was sometime after the Civil war that trade between the states eliminated tariffs between the states.
I believe it was this source that I read that in.
About halfway down starts the following:
In 1828, as a new tariff bill was moving through Congress, Southern politicians thought they had a way to defeat it. While New England’s vast textile industry wanted high tariffs on industrial goods such as cloth, it needed to import such raw materials as wool, flax for making linen, and hemp for making rope for its shipbuilding industry. Southern congressmen inserted high tariffs of 45 percent on these commodities into the bill hoping to split off enough New England congressmen to defeat it. Their attempt failed, the tariff bill passed, and President John Quincy Adams signed it into law even though he knew it would hurt him politically. The South, ever an exporter of snappy political phrases, dubbed it the “Tariff of Abominations,” as it has been known ever since.
Adams was, indeed, defeated in his re-election bid by Andrew Jackson. But Jackson, while a Southerner himself, was determined to pay off the national debt and was willing to tolerate a high tariff in order to do so. Not so his vice president, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who was adamantly opposed to the tariff of 1828. After its passage, Calhoun anonymously wrote a pamphlet asserting the right of states to nullify federal laws that they regarded as unconstitutional.
In November of 1832, after the tariff bill of that year did not lower tariffs enough to suit Southern demands—tariffs on specific industrial products were lowered from 45 to 35 percent, but others remained the same—the South Carolina legislature passed an Ordinance of Nullification, declaring the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 to be null and void within the borders of the state.
President Jackson would have none of that. Not given to mincing words, he wrote: “I consider . . . the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”
Jackson threatened military action if necessary to enforce federal law and was authorized by Congress to use it. Only the Compromise Tariff of 1833, in which duties were to be reduced over ten years to the levels of 1816, brought the crisis to an end, with South Carolina repealing its Ordinance of Nullification.
Interestingly, Newt chatted with Mark Halperin a couple of days ago, and Gingrich said two reporters get under Trump’s skin: Shaggie Beaverman at the NYET, and Jess Butthead, the author of this piece of garbage.
To recap, you said "as the constitution gives the president the right to enact tariffs...." And I asked you where the Constitution says that. Care to answer? Or do you just want to admit that it doesn't?
"Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat whose office is leading the states' lawsuit, called Trump's tariffs unlawful, reckless and economically devastating."This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim," Rayfield said in a statement."
Oh and Mark Canuck Cornhole ran his gob too. Of course, both sputtered their TDS and their hatred for exactly one news cycle , before the Federal Court of Appeals jerked the slack out of the black-robed poseurs the next day, and stayed the illicit ruling in toto, knowing that Trump is likely to win on the validity of his utilization of IEEPA at SCOTUS.
And here's how you stop this -- unmask the communications of everyone at the Court of International Trade, and find the backchannel communications with those 12 Democrats -- the friendly venue shopping, the neomarxist law clerks who actually wrote the 'opinion', all of it.
Then disband that Court and ban everyone from ever working in law again.
As usual, Trump gets the last word...
"Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom “hustlers” must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!” he wrote." -- Our President
Since you seem proud of your freshman college year how did you build the weakest of all arguments? Your townstrawmen arguments don’t stand up to a faint breeze. The WSJ does not once mention “our democracy” or “rule of law”. So how can I fall for something that isn’t even mentioned? Try arguing against the article by actually citing and quoting the article. It’s called deductive reasoning. Start with the article cited, choose the parts of the article you disagree with, cite them, and then provide your refutation by showing opposing facts or examples or use the article itself since you say it contradicted itself. It’s far better than strawmen and ad hominem attacks.
The WSJ doesn’t try to do anything but explain how precedents Trump helped create are being used against Trump. It is called irony but maybe that wasn’t covered in your freshman year.
The WSJ supports DOGE cuts and the editorials are only critical on DOGE because Congress has not made them permanent.
I posted an article. The article explains itself
and the excerpt I posted. Since you have not read it you will have a hard time refuting it.
First, you are a dullard. Second as others have pointed out, they don't because there is a difference, a huge difference which you could figure out for yourself if you were not such a complete bought in TDS idiot.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977
Even though it does not specifically mention tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA)218 gives the President extensive economic powers in a national emergency declared under the National Emergencies Act (NEA),219 including to "regulate" or "prohibit" imports.220 Presidents have invoked IEEPA on many occasions to impose sanctions such as asset freezes and prohibitions on unlicensed transactions directed to foreign countries, entities, and individuals,221 although no President had used IEEPA to impose tariffs until this year. A separate CRS publication examines legal debates, congressional responses, and historical background regarding whether and under what circumstances IEEPA may authorize the President to impose tariffs.222
In February 2025, President Trump invoked IEEPA as a basis to impose tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and the PRC.223 In his executive orders invoking IEEPA, President Trump proclaimed national emergencies relating to, inter alia, illegal immigration, illicit drugs, and alleged failures of those countries' governments to ameliorate these problems.224 In April 2025, President Trump invoked IEEPA to impose what he characterized as "reciprocal" tariffs (referred to in this report as global tariffs) of at least 10% on imports from almost all U.S. trading partners, with higher, country-specific tariffs applied to imports from over 50 countries.225 As the basis for these global tariffs, President Trump proclaimed a national emergency relating to "a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners' economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits."226
Plaintiffs have filed multiple lawsuits in the U.S. Court of International Trade and other courts challenging tariffs President Trump has imposed under IEEPA.227 The government has moved to transfer at least one of these lawsuits to the CIT, arguing that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over lawsuits against the United States "arising out of any law . . . providing for" tariffs.228 To decide such motions, courts could potentially be faced with considering some of the substantive claims in these lawsuits—i.e., plaintiffs' claims that IEEPA is not in fact a law "providing for" tariffs.
The President may use IEEPA's authorities "to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat."229 The NEA authorizes the President to declare a national emergency and requires that "[s]uch proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."230 The NEA provides that an emergency may be terminated either by presidential proclamation or by enactment into law of a joint resolution of Congress.231 In addition, a declared emergency automatically terminates on its anniversary unless the President notifies Congress within the 90 days prior to the anniversary that the emergency is to continue and publishes that notice in the Federal Register;232 provided these notifications are made, the emergency may continue indefinitely.233 IEEPA also requires the President to make regular reports to Congress.234
Some legal scholars argue that, to the extent that IEEPA may empower the President to impose tariffs to address purported national security threats, IEEPA (as well as Section 232) may erode the distinction between Congress's constitutional power over tariffs and foreign commerce and the President's national security and foreign affairs powers, ceding too much control over tariffs to the President.235 Others have criticized the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on the grounds that it may be used to circumvent the substantive and procedural limits found in other, more targeted authorities.236 As explained in this report, some tariff authorities require an executive agency to conduct an investigation and make predicate findings before the President or the agency may raise tariffs, and some limit the duration or magnitude of any tariffs.237 The President's broad latitude to declare national emergencies under IEEPA may obviate the need for the President to rely on trade-specific laws and thereby vitiate their constraints on executive action.238 In addition, the possible lack of judicially enforceable standards as to what may constitute a national emergency may give the President practically unlimited authority to impose tariffs.239
On the other hand, some commentators argue that, in addition to serving other economic and policy functions, tariffs may provide leverage for the United States in international negotiations. For tariffs to serve this function, one commentator reasoned, "the executive needs flexibility to act, without waiting for Congress."240 On this view, the flexibility and speed afforded by IEEPA might be seen as helping the President to conduct foreign policy effectively.
Considerations for Congress
The U.S. Constitution grants the tariff power to Congress. Although the Supreme Court has held that Congress has wide latitude to delegate tariff authority to the President, Congress is ultimately responsible for determining what tariff authorities the President should have and what limitations those authorities place on presidential discretion.
Congress has not done that, it was 5 small businesses that brought the suits to the Trad Circuit court.
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.