sconosciuto

godofbiscuitssf said:

mark fearing said:

Okay...lots of weird things. 3 things - 

1- can a president just decide not to enforce a law? One where the stated reason is based on implied foreign manipulation?

2- The Dem's were idiots for passing this in the first place. The nature of the stated concerns are obviously ridiculous.

3- I don't have a 3 I guess...but this is really silly.

Yeah, blame the Dems.  Who instigated it?

netrox said:

The SCOTUS will likely affirm the ruling by refusing to hear it because it's clear that what Trump did was a violation of law. The president cannot impose tariffs when no emergency laws are in effect. It has to be done with the Congress to decide what tariffs can be imposed or not. 

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

randominternetperson said: What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as said those tariffs are null and void?

That would be obvious obstruction and contempt of court. A federal judge could potentially have U.S. Marshalls arrest officials involved in that. 

One issue with that is that the U.S. Marshalls are under the Dept. of Justice.  The Dept. of Justice is under Trump.

This can make it problematic for the courts to enforce rulings against the wishes of a sitting President.

U.S. Marshalls serve both the DOJ and the Federal judiciary. Separation of powers = judge doesn't need sign-off from DOJ. 

There are theoretical issues and practical issues.

From a theoretical standpoint, the Marshalls listen to the DOJ and Trump can't set tariffs.

From a practical standpoint, a Marshall's paycheck comes from the DOJ, and the Marshall's chain of command work for the DOJ.  This administration has a history of firing people who follow the law when it conflicts with Presidential orders.  Thus, a Marshall might be fired for attempting to enforce a court order against the Trump administration.  We have seen this in the US Attorney's office of the Southern District of New York, where they went through six high ranking officials who refused to follow an illegal directive.

Furthermore, the US Supreme Court has ruled that a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime for any official acts.  Executive orders and directives fall into that category.  Additionally, any official acts can't be used as evidence in a court of law, even after the President leaves office.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation.  Imagine a foreign government can't buy arms from the US because they have a history of supporting terrorism. They decide to offer the sitting President lucrative personal real estate deals, and a $200 million jet as an "incentive" for him to change US foreign policy to allow that country to purchase weapons.  Suppose they structure the deal, so that the Jet is technical given to the US Government, with the stipulation that when the President leaves office the jet goes to a private organization run by the retired President (i.e. his "presidential library").   Imagine that in this hypothetical situation, the President agreed.   

In the past, this would have been considered a bribe.  The President could have been charged with a crime while in office, or after he let office.  Under the new supreme court ruling the President is immune from prosecution for accepting bribes while in office, and after he leaves office.

Similarly, suppose someone donated a million dollars to the President in order to get a pardon for her son's tax fraud conviction.  Again the President is immune from prosecution.  While the person making the bribe can be prosecuted, you can't use as evidence that the President pardoned her son.  This makes it challenging to prosecute people who bribe the President.  Strangely, you can prosecute for attempted bribery, but if the President accepts and acts on the bribe, you can't use those actions as evidence in court.

The bottom line is that even if it was a crime for the President to defy a court order, he cannot be prosecuted for it, and the US Marshalls would have no jurisdiction over the President.

Jim_MAY said:

The Trump Administration will advance an appeal to the Supreme Court. Congress gave tariff powers to the Presidents long ago.