BREAKING: Most of Trump's tariffs ruled illegal

[Cougarbear]

No you moron. That’s what I’m objecting to. Try to follow along.

There is nothing “made up” about the MASSIVE and very dangerous emergency. What President Trump did was to officially acknowledge that fact.

You disagree? Too bad.

I cheer reality and some actual moves by our government to finally address the emergency — which imbeciles such as you won’t even acknowledge. .

Not even remotely akin to your ignorant and dishonest claim. He has not engaged in ANY fascism.

Communists like to throw around the term "fascism" as if they know what it means.

 

[dudmuck]

It says where?

it says here, is a link that points to a document from congress from year 2016 about presidential authority over trade and duties.

 

[JWBooth]

Emergency declarations and executive orders are extraconstitutional and always have been.

 

[otto105]

37 trillion debt

Did you support the big brutal bill?

Did you support Shitlers! 8 trillion add in first term?

Do you support raising the debt ceiling again this October?

 

[otto105]

Emergency declarations and executive orders are extraconstitutional and always have been.

Yes, during actual emergencies

 

[Cougarbear]

it says here, is a link that points to a document from congress from year 2016 about presidential authority over trade and duties.

Tariff Act of 1930 §338(a):23“The President when he finds that the public interest will be served shall by proclamation specify and declare new or additional duties as hereinafter provided upon articles wholly or in part the growth or product of, or imported in a vessel of, any foreign country whenever he shall find as a fact that such country—(1) Imposes, directly or indirectly, upon the disposition in or transportation in transit through or re-exportation from such country of any article wholly or in part the growth or product of the United States any unreasonable charge, exaction, regulation, or limitation which is not equally enforced upon the like articles of every foreign country; or (2) Discriminates in fact against the commerce of the United States....”
 Trade Expansion Act of 1962 §232(b)–(c):24 If the Secretary of Commerce“ finds that an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security,” then the President is authorized to take “such other actions as the President deems necessary to adjust the imports of such article so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security” (subject to certain procedural requirements).
 Trade Act of 1974 §122:25“Whenever fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports—(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits, (2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or (3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of payments disequilibrium, the President shall proclaim, for a period not exceeding150 days (unless such period is extended by Act of Congress)—(A) a temporary import surcharge, not to exceed 15 percent ad valorem, in the form of duties (in addition to those already imposed, if any) on articles imported into the United States; (B) temporary limitations through the use of quotas on the importation of articles into the United States; or (C) both a temporary import surcharge described in Subparagraph (A) and temporary limitations described in subparagraph (B).” This example clearly expresses a time period restriction (“fora period not exceeding 150 days”) and the permissible tariff range (“not to exceed 15 percent ad valorem”). This section also authorizes the President “to proclaim, for a period of 150 days (unless such period is extended by Act of Congress)—(A) a temporary reduction (of not more than 5 percent ad valorem)in the rate of duty on any article; and (B) a temporary increase in the value or quantity of articles which may be imported under any import restriction,

 

[BackAgain]

Communists like to throw around the term "fascism" as if they know what it means.

Very true. And it’s obvious.

 

[Meister]

Did you support the big brutal bill?

Did you support Shitlers! 8 trillion add in first term?

Do you support raising the debt ceiling again this October?

Most of the BBB I did support, I had issues with some of the Bill.
Unlike you when there was the Green New Deal, and the Inflation Reduction Act.
You left out that Congress, Pelosi's House voted for the shut down of the US economy.
Yeah, I do have issues with it, but I also understand that it wasn't just Trump
that got us to this level. I've always have and expressed that there is too much
spending, which your party likes also.

 

[TimFitz]

“ms.Fit, you dolt, he was relying on previous acts of Congress.”

No, he was not. You made up the claim. You back it up.

That’s not the question, you fool. The question is who gets to make those decisions? Under no circumstances is it you.

irrelevant attempt at a personal taunt.

As the words of a famous song go (more or less): it’s not for you to say. But I believe you’re flatly wrong. Our long ignored debt problem has indeed become an emergency.

It wasn’t an emergency when Trumpsters all looked the other way at Trump’s borrow and spend in his first term or the new borrow and spend he just signed.

And you can’t tarriff the national debt away anyway. Any high school kid can tell you that. it’s positively stupid. Another BS excuse that trump just made up. And the sheep all bleat on cue!

Oh, horseshit. First of all, your claim is false. And secondly, it’s also not what President Trump did.

Yes, Trump made all of his “crises” up to use as excuses to exercise his authoritarian a,bitions.

Repeating yourself isn’t really “argument.”

Yes, there was. But, even so, the DC Home Rule doesn’t demand that there be an emergency.

For 30 days. After that Congress must give your fuhrer extensions. And there is no law whatsoever that permits National Guard from out of the District to participate.

There, of course, is no crisis.

Trump wants Fox to show his cultists images of white law enforcement occupying the nation’s Capitol. The white supremacist boogaloo fantasy brought to your right wing television every day.

 

[Care4all]

No you moron. That’s what I’m objecting to. Try to follow along.

There is nothing “made up” about the MASSIVE and very dangerous emergency. What President Trump did was to officially acknowledge that fact.

You disagree? Too bad.

I cheer reality and some actual moves by our government to finally address the emergency — which imbeciles such as you won’t even acknowledge. .

Not even remotely akin to your ignorant and dishonest claim. He has not engaged in ANY fascism.

Nope! The president said the National Emergency was Fentanyl coming in ... when he first declared the emergency for Canadian tariffs....

 

[BackAgain]

No, he was not. You made up the claim. You back it up.

No. I was denying your claim. If you were capable of understanding such things, you dildo, you’d know already that as the proponent, you carry the burden: not me.

However, since you’re too mentally challenged to do what is your job, I will educate you on the basis for my disagreement with your false claim.

Trump Seizes Power Over D.C. Using Rarely Invoked Rule

Donald Trump is taking over the Metropolitan Police Department, and sending in the National Guard.

newrepublic.com

Summary: you carry the burden but can’t meet it so you attempt to shift the burden. Although not required to do so, I did disprove your erroneous claim in this reply to your false claim.

 

[BackAgain]

Nope! The president said the National Emergency was Fentanyl coming in ... when he first declared the emergency for Canadian tariffs....

No. That is not what he said.

What he did was to include that factor.

Your eye roll emoji is, thus, valueless.

 

[scruffy]

Not these tariffs, sorry.

You do understand that was the ruling, right?

Just more leftard lawfare.

Nothing to see here.

 

[scruffy]

Tariff Act of 1930 §338(a):23“

There are a dozen such laws. They all say the same thing.

 

[TimFitz]

Your article

No. I was denying your claim. If you were capable of understanding such things, you dildo, you’d know already that as the proponent, you carry the burden: not me.

However, since you’re too mentally challenged to do what is your job, I will educate you on the basis for my disagreement with your false claim.

Trump Seizes Power Over D.C. Using Rarely Invoked Rule

Donald Trump is taking over the Metropolitan Police Department, and sending in the National Guard.

newrepublic.com

Summary: you carry the burden but can’t meet it so you attempt to shift the burden. Although not required to do so, I did disprove your erroneous claim in this reply to your false claim.

says the same thing I have been saying.

That Trump declared an imaginary crisis and exploited a clause in the Home Rule Act to do it. He won’t be able to do that in any state.

They also note that this is an exercise in national intimidation,.

I added the boogaloo part, as this is part of the recurring white supremacist fantasy.

 

[The Duke]

However, this is a constitutional point. So, what is "tax" when it comes to the constitution and whether a President can unilaterally declare a tariff or a tax? I believe that the constitution is specific to a tax being about the government imposing taxes on American citizens and businesses directly. Not the trade between countries. The SCOTUS will side with President Trump.

Tariffs fall under foreign policy. The president is in charge of that. Not some judges.

 

[BackAgain]

Your article

says the same thing I have been saying.

False.

That Trump declared an imaginary crisis and exploited a clause in the Home Rule Act to do it.

Again, wrong. He invoked what the law permits, and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

He won’t be able to do that in any state.

No shit. You figured out that the basis he invoked in DC, The District Of Columbia Home Rule Act, isn’t applicable to any other jurisdiction? What was your first clue?

But there is the Insurrection Act.
And you know what is? A Congressional Act. And together the President has a lawful basis to provide assistance to Chicago.

They also note that this is an exercise in national intimidation,.

Which “they” are you talking about? And which nation is it, precisely, who “they” say was being intimidated. Quote it exactly.

I added the boogaloo part, as this is part of the recurring white supremacist fantasy.

. Bullshit

 

[BackAgain]

Emergency declarations and executive orders are extraconstitutional and always have been.

Hmm. There is some accuracy in your comment and your use of the word “extraconstitutional” (which is a fairly precise term).

The President must “execute” the laws. In many matters, Congress provides some specific duties for the President to adhere to regarding the subject matter of the Act. Sometimes they don’t. But HOW he chooses to do so is his concern.

He can, for example, issue an Executive Order directing his subordinates how to perform their respective jobs in regard to that Acts subject matters.

 

[Lesh]

Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Global Tariffs — The Wall Street Journal

Decision delivers blow to central prong of president’s economic agenda; levies will remain in place pending further proceedings

apple.news

They claim that he has gone too far in using an emergency law.

Like every time President Trmo uses powers granted to him by statute or by the Constitution itself, the tyrannical branch seeks to become the Co-President.

I guess “****” the Separation of Powers, eh?

Other Presidents have misused emergency powers to various degrees. This is wayyyy over the line

 

[theHawk]

An appeals court has ruled Trump's tariffs illegal. It will be appealed to SCOTUS.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/trump-trade-tariffs-appeals-court-ieepa.html

LOL President Trump was elected to enact tariffs to fix our economy and create job creation.

But some lowly judge can just override all that? This clown judge will be overturned of course. The question is why is there no penalty for these judges that overreach their authority?