As Don says, "let's see what happens."

[martybegan]

The Constitution is very clear, only Congress levy tariffs.

Congress passed laws giving the President discretion to set tariff rates under certain conditions.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Pharma firms are calling for clarity on tariffs imposed under the new U.S.-EU trade agreement, as analysts warn that punitive sector-specific levies could risk blowing up the entire deal.

Ambiguity abounds around the terms for pharmaceutical goods under the trade truce agreed Sunday, which imposes 15% tariffs on EU goods imported to the U.S.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced a “straight across” tariff on “automobiles and everything else,” during a news briefing, while simultaneously suggesting that pharma was “unrelated to this deal.”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, meanwhile, dubbed the agreed levy as “all-inclusive,” and indicated that Europe would be excluded from a forthcoming announcement on pharma tariffs.

“We have 15% for pharmaceuticals. Whatever the decision later on is, of the president of the U.S., how to deal with pharmaceuticals in general globally, that’s on a different sheet of paper,” Von der Leyen said Sunday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/29/pharma-tariffs-firms-urge-for-clarity-under-eu-us-trade-deal.html

How many of these "deals" are done deals and how many are subject to Dotard's whims? Moreover, how many if any will survive the court challenge?

So deals that are good for America will now be challenged in court with law fare suits from the Democrats? And you wonder why approval rates for the Democratic Party are at historic lows?

 

[Independent thinker]

One thing that would happen is there would be one less person on the board to point out very little of what you believe in the world of politics has any basis in truth.

Except your posts don’t have any basis in truth.

 

[berg80]

So deals that are good for America will now be challenged in court with law fare suits from the Democrats? And you wonder why approval rates for the Democratic Party are at historic lows?

Whether they are good for America is undetermined.

Nigel Green, the chief executive of deVere Group, a global financial advisory, called the E.U. deal “a reset, not a resolution.”

“A year ago, markets would have recoiled,” he said. “Today, they’re simply grateful it wasn’t worse.”

While the president’s plan for global trade now looks like a political victory, whether it will be an economic success remains much more debatable. The Trump administration has essentially embarked on a vast economic experiment, with tariff levels not seen in the United States since the early 20th century. The rates Mr. Trump is asking other countries to agree to are typically used by poor economies trying to protect nascent industries, not by industrial powerhouses like the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/29/business/economy/trump-tariffs-economy.html

You've answered my question, albeit indirectly. It appears you are okay with trump potentially breaking the law in order to achieve your desired outcome.

 

[22lcidw]

President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff powers and recent trade deals could soon run into a legal buzzsaw.

A federal appeals court is set to hear oral arguments next week in a high-profile lawsuit challenging Trump’s stated authority to effectively slap tariffs at any level on any country at any time, so long as he deems them necessary to address a national emergency.

The Trump administration says that that expansive tariff power derives from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

The bulk of Trump’s biggest tariffs — including his fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico and China, and the worldwide “reciprocal” tariffs he first unveiled in early April — rest on his invocation of that law.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck those tariffs down in late May, ruling that Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/26/trump-tariffs-trade-lawsuits.html

Question for trump fans. If the SC rules trump exceeded his authority by unilaterally imposing tariffs, making them illegal, are you in favor of keeping them in place anyway? IOW, is it okay for him to break the law to reach the desired outcome you favor?

You guys are the most negative people on the planet except for your agendas. Or the ones you are to follow from your masters.

 

[Hafar1014]

President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff powers and recent trade deals could soon run into a legal buzzsaw.

A federal appeals court is set to hear oral arguments next week in a high-profile lawsuit challenging Trump’s stated authority to effectively slap tariffs at any level on any country at any time, so long as he deems them necessary to address a national emergency.

The Trump administration says that that expansive tariff power derives from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.

The bulk of Trump’s biggest tariffs — including his fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico and China, and the worldwide “reciprocal” tariffs he first unveiled in early April — rest on his invocation of that law.

The U.S. Court of International Trade struck those tariffs down in late May, ruling that Trump exceeded his authority under IEEPA.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/26/trump-tariffs-trade-lawsuits.html

Question for trump fans. If the SC rules trump exceeded his authority by unilaterally imposing tariffs, making them illegal, are you in favor of keeping them in place anyway? IOW, is it okay for him to break the law to reach the desired outcome you favor?

Trump is winning as the appeals reach the higher courts which gives him even more power

 

[berg80]

Except your posts don’t have any basis in truth.

You aren't the first person to make that claim. None of you can back it up.

 

[berg80]

Trump is winning as the appeals reach the higher courts which gives him even more power

It is absolutely true that his SC shares his vision of an all powerful unitary executive. Law and precedent be damned. Giving an aspiring autocrat autocratic power only accelerates the country's demise.

 

[Hafar1014]

It is absolutely true that his SC shares his vision of an all powerful unitary executive. Law and precedent be damned. Giving an aspiring autocrat autocratic power only accelerates the country's demise.

Trump is using the power of the executive to reduce the power of the government which means more freedom for the people. You have it backwards.

 

[Meister]

He wouldn’t prevent the president of Taiwan from landing in NY in order to simp for Xi.

Trump's reported snub of Taiwan president spurs concerns over deference to China. FOX

Why don't you give the details on why Trump did that? Better yet, why don't you start your
own thread instead of derailing this thread???

idiot

 

[Man With A Plan]

Whether they are good for America is undetermined.

Nigel Green, the chief executive of deVere Group, a global financial advisory, called the E.U. deal “a reset, not a resolution.”

“A year ago, markets would have recoiled,” he said. “Today, they’re simply grateful it wasn’t worse.”

While the president’s plan for global trade now looks like a political victory, whether it will be an economic success remains much more debatable. The Trump administration has essentially embarked on a vast economic experiment, with tariff levels not seen in the United States since the early 20th century. The rates Mr. Trump is asking other countries to agree to are typically used by poor economies trying to protect nascent industries, not by industrial powerhouses like the United States.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/29/business/economy/trump-tariffs-economy.html

You've answered my question, albeit indirectly. It appears you are okay with trump potentially breaking the law in order to achieve your desired outcome.

Trump isn't breaking any law, Berg. All that's happening is the Democrats are desperate to stop him from having any success so they're filing one law suit after another trying to tie everything up in court. The suits are dismissed as soon as they get out of the local court that Democrats have judge shopped the case to but it slows everything down. I hope they keep right on doing it too...people are getting tired of the games they play...and you can see it in the abysmal approval numbers the Democrat Party now has.

 

[Meister]

Those politicians, are they self appointed or elected?

And your secret point is exactly.......?

 

[konradv]

Why don't you give the details on why Trump did that? Better yet, why don't you start yourown thread instead of derailing this thread???

That’s what’s said every time someone doesn’t want to deal with uncomfortable facts. I thought the thread was about “seeing what happens”. It seems that, if MAGA’s narrative is challenged(Biden=Xiden), it goes out the window.

 

[Nostra]

Congress delegated tariff authority to the president.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/08/politics/tariffs-trump-power-constitution-congress

Congress gave presidents power over tariffs. They could aways take it back​

While there are enough Republican senators on board to work with Democrats on the bill and overcome a filibuster, there still isn’t enough support to reach the 67 votes it would require to override a promised White House veto.

The president's veto wins, period, full stop.

Don’t confuse that one with reality. He don’t do that.

 

[Meister]

That’s what’s said every time someone doesn’t want to deal with uncomfortable facts. I thought the thread was about “seeing what happens”. It seems that, if MAGA’s narrative is challenged(Biden=Xiden), it goes out the window.

No, it's that you deflect to derailing the thread.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

He wouldn’t prevent the president of Taiwan from landing in NY in order to simp for Xi.

Trump's reported snub of Taiwan president spurs concerns over deference to China. FOX

Why Should We Care About the Chiang Kai Shreks?

 

[konradv]

Why Should We Care About the Chiang Kai Shreks?

They’re not the Commies. This is a strange attitude, considering how often Biden was called Xiden!

 

[Seymour Flops]

He should follow the ruling of the USSC.

Then ask Congress to consider impeaching the author of the majority opinion.

 

[konradv]

He should follow the ruling of the USSC.

Then ask Congress to consider impeaching the author of the majority opinion.

 

[berg80]

Tariffs..........illegal.

Invoking the AEA.........illegal.

Judge Rules Trump Administration Illegally Canceled Harvard Funding
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/03/us/harvard-trump-funding-ruling.html

When things go badly for Don they invariably go well for the nation.