mfryd

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.

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.

sconosciuto 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.   It is normal for the population to look the other way at these sorts of things when they like the direction the administration is taking. A big issue i that by looking the other way when you like what's happening, you lose the ability to do anything if you don't like the direction the government is taking.


The only thing that's new is the magnitude of what's going on.  Previous administrations have never violated the law in such an egregious fashion on so many controversial issues.  But then, this is what America wanted.  After all we did elect a convicted felon. 


A good example of previous violations is the US highway system.  The US Constitution envisions a lean and mean federal government.  The Constitution enumerates the few things the Federal government is responsible for, and explicitly reserves everything else to the states.  There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Feds the responsibility or authority to create a national highway system.   At one point the government tried to justify it as being for national defense, but that's no longer applicable.  The US military can deploy via air to anywhere in the world.  Trying to do a domestic deployment by road would only slow things down.  We don't have roads to Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., yet we were able to wage war there.

Now, I am not suggesting that it's a bad idea to have a national highway system.  Personally, I think it's a good thing.  My point is that it is contrary to the Constitution, but the majority of Americans are in favor of it, so we tend to look the other way.  

Someone needs to re-read the Commerce Clause. The Founding Fathers, contrary to the ahistorical assertions of conservatives, envisioned the Constitution as a living document rather than being frozen in amber as if the US would perpetually be the nation of farmers and shopkeepers that it was three centuries ago.

After re-reading the CC, I suggest you familiarize yourself with what it was like to travel by motorized vehicles for long, interstate travel before the advent of the freeway system.

The Roman Empire as history knows it would not have existed without a comprehensive road system, read up on that as well. A comprehensive system of roads connecting the entirety of its interior would indeed be critical to defense of US territory in the event of invasion. That such a crisis is extraordinarily unlikely today*, 70 some years after the inception of the interstate highway system, does not change that simple fact.

*on the other hand... the US spearheaded a push to go to war against a sovereign nation in order to depose the despotic dictator of a sovereign nation that the former alleged was an imminently dangerous peril to international peace,  and obtained UN blessing for it...

Yes, the founders intended the Constitution to be a living document.  That's why we have a process for, and a history of, amendments.   I don't think they intended that we should simply ignore parts of the Constitution that are not popular.  The early United States was like the current European Union.  A collection of independent states/countries, joining together for a few, explicitly enumerate, purposes.  The goal was a small Federal government and strong state's rights.

The tenth amendment explicitly states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states.   This tells us that the Federal Government does not have power over everything, and that something must be reserved to the states.

Yes, the commerce clause allows the Feds to regulate interstate commerce.    While roads are helpful to commerce, they are not, in themselves, commerce.   

One can make the argument that just about anything can be tied to interstate commerce, and therefore the Feds have authority over everything.  The tenth amendment makes it clear that this interpretation is wrong.   

Consider the situation where someone wants to grow marijuana in their backyard for personal consumption.  This clearly has nothing to do with interstate commerce.  Yet, the Feds claim that they have the authority to regulate this, as the grower might change their mind, and sell the marijuana to someone in another state.   By this interpretation the commerce clause would cover everything, as anything can lead to interstate commerce.  That interpretation violates the tenth amendment.

Now we can have a discussion on whether Federal regulation of marijuana is good or bad, but that's a separate discussion from whether or not the Constitution allows the Feds to regulate it.

Similarly, during the 1970s energy crisis, the Feds instituted a nationwide speed limit of 55 mph.  Whether or not this was good or bad, the Constitution clearly does not give the Feds the authority to regulate speed limits on state and local roads.  However, the country turned a blind eye to the Constitutional issues as we were in a gasoline crisis.  The shortage was so bad that many areas had to resort to even/odd gas rationing (if your license plate was an odd number you could only buy gas on odd numbered days).


Keep in mind, that when President Eisenhower created the "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways", he understood that the commerce clause didn't give him the authority.  His claim was that it was for national defense (A responsibility which is delegated to the Feds).  Therefore, the highway system is designed to allow for the movement of tanks.   However, the realities of the modern world make this concept obsolete.  Today in times of conflict,  we transport troops and gear by plane, not land.

If you didn't specify the number of tests to run using the -c flag, press Control-C on your keyboard to end the tests.

The advantage of a wired mouse is that it can be used in a situation where multiple laptop users share a docking station.  At home, I have a desk with a large monitor, wired keyboard and wired mouse.  Any laptop user in my family can walk up to it, plug a single Thunderbolt cable into their laptop, and make use of the monitor, mouse and keyboard.   If the keyboard or mouse were bluetooth-only, users would need to go through a pairing process every time we swap who's sitting at the desk.   Apple's bluetooth keyboard can be used as a wired keyboard, so it isn't a problem.  It would be nice if Apple had a mouse that could be used as a wired mouse.