mfryd

williamlondon said:

AppleZulu said:

mikethemartian said:

Apparently an appeals court has lifted the first court block in tariffs but a second court has also placed a new block.

Hey, great. More instability. Just what every American business needs to thrive. This administration's Big Plan is really working!




Wait. Did I say "business?" I meant to say "short seller" and "inside trader."

Just like last time there's going to be a whole lot of people going to jail from this admin. Can't wait to watch all the perp walks (again, sigh).

I would be surprised if many from this administration go to jail.   Most of the alleged transgressions are Federal issues.  Both the FBI and DOJ are under Trump.  Even if someone was to be charged, Trump has the authority to issues pardons for Federal issues.  He can even issue proactive pardons for people who have not yet been charged.   Pardons (including proactive pardons) stay in force past Trump's term.

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.

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.

Jim_MAY said:

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

Whether or not Trump's tariffs are good or bad is a separate question as to whether or not he had the legal authority to impose them. 

The US Constitution specifies that Congress, not the President, has the authority to set tariff rates.

Trump cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as delegating to the President the authority to set tariffs.  IEEPA does not mention tariffs, and it only applies in certain emergency situations.   A long term trade imbalance is not the sort of "emergency" that IEEPA covers.

hmlongco said:

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

The Trump administration tries to claim everything is an emergency or national security related. But they never like to provide any evidence of either claim. 

The Trump administration asserts various "emergencies" as a justification for violating the law and the US Constitution.   

Congress delegated to the executive the ability to impose tariffs (taxes) as needed during national emergencies. So Donald quite literally has to trump up "emergencies" in order to do everything that he's doing.

Congress could simply decide to take back that authority, but no one in Congress has the backbone to stand up to Trump.

It's not a simple topic.  The Constitution gives control of tariffs to Congress.  The nondelegation doctorine tells us that Congress can't delegate that control to the executive branch.  Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) stuck down the "Chevron" decision.  This placed further limits on what Congress can delegate. 

Trump claims that he has the authority to impose/modify tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA).  However, that act does not mention tariffs, and does not appear to give the President authority to impose or modify tariffs.   Even if it did, he would only have such authority under a national emergency.   Reasonable people can question whether a trade imbalance is a qualifying "emergency", or even an emergency of any sort.  In fact, most economists believe that a trade deficit isn't even a problem.