Trade Wars and Tariffs

No, that's not a statement that he was "expecting" an unfavorable decision, that's him stating he's going to be a totalitarian and ignore it. But please go on and tell me how Republicans respect our Constitutional checks and balances and respect the rule of law.
Trump was tweeting about two weeks ago about this decision coming out from a left leaning court...he was expecting it. The court lets the tarriffs stand till mid October so it can be appealed as if the court already knows the USSC will overturn it.

About all Presidents have enacted tarriffs but now because it's Trump is has become illegal. See GROK below:

We have too many corrupt leftist as Judges, Judiciary branch is a disgrace and corrupt mess. more corrupt than Congress.

GROK
Nearly every U.S. president has enacted or overseen the enactment of tariffs on imports from other countries, as tariffs have been a fundamental tool of American trade policy and federal revenue generation since the nation's founding. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to impose tariffs (Article I, Section 8), but Congress has historically passed tariff legislation that presidents sign into law, effectively enacting them. In modern times (post-1934), presidents have also used delegated authority from laws like the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232 for national security), and Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301 for unfair practices) to impose tariffs unilaterally via executive action.

While early presidents primarily signed broad congressional tariff acts, most have taken direct action to raise, lower, or target tariffs on specific countries or goods.

Out of the 46 individuals who have served as president (up to the current date in 2025, including Donald Trump's second non-consecutive term), all but a handful have been involved in enacting tariffs. The exceptions are typically presidents who served very briefly (e.g., those who died or resigned early in their term) and did not have time to address trade policy, or those in eras when tariffs were already low and no major changes occurred under their watch. Based on historical records, at least 40 presidents have enacted tariffs, with the vast majority doing so through signing legislation or executive orders"
 
Last edited:
Top or bottom paragraph?
“The core Congressional power to impose taxes such as tariffs is vested exclusively in the legislative branch by the Constitution,” the court said. “Tariffs are a core Congressional power.”

The appellate court paused its ruling from taking effect until Oct. 14, in order to give the Trump administration time to ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decision.
Top is the appellate court opinion. Bottom is Trump counting on SCOTUS to bail him out. But honestly if the top paragraph is correct I don’t see how SCOTUS can deliver the ruling
 
Top or bottom paragraph?

Top is the appellate court opinion. Bottom is Trump counting on SCOTUS to bail him out. But honestly if the top paragraph is correct I don’t see how SCOTUS can deliver the ruling

I think the emergency declaration rationale is a bunch of BS.

I just dont see 2/3 of Roberts, ACB, or Kavanaugh going against him either...
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
I think the emergency declaration rationale is a bunch of BS.

I just dont see 2/3 of Roberts, ACB, or Kavanaugh going against him either...
I think it’s a pretty important test of the courts independence. The constitution seems pretty clear on the issue. (Article I Section 8 first paragraph) As you say will SCOTUS be willing to nut up and deliver that finding tho.

And think of the fallout if they do! Trump might start beating the war drums to pack the court and then we’ll start seeing post after post of showing Grok says Trump has the authority to pack the court! 😂
 
Last edited:

appears Trump was expecting this...





😆😆😆😆😆😆

Suck it Donald.

Constitution 1. Dumbass 0.

Once again, the Judicial Branch shoots you down.

You're not a king. You're not even a prince. You're a moronic Dictator wanna-be.

Hard to believe, but you're rapidly approaching lame-duck status only 8 months into your term, despite a fawning, gutless Congress in your corner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
I think the emergency declaration rationale is a bunch of BS.

I just dont see 2/3 of Roberts, ACB, or Kavanaugh going against him either...

I don't know. This ruling is written in such a way that Gorsuch typically loves. He's generally opposed to unlimited power unmoored from legislative oversight. And Roberts will almost always defer to Congress when it comes to taxes. I think Trump is looking at a 5-4 loss at best.
 
I don't know. This ruling is written in such a way that Gorsuch typically loves. He's generally opposed to unlimited power unmoored from legislative oversight. And Roberts will almost always defer to Congress when it comes to taxes. I think Trump is looking at a 5-4 loss at best.
It depends on if Roberts and the other Federalist Society members on th court are ready to fully abandon 'originalism' in their attempt to manufacture constitutional grounds for the 'unitary executive theory'.
 
Orange Menace: "If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America."

Literally. 😆😆😆

Ahead of the ruling, lawyers for the White House argued that invalidating the tariffs would lead to a 1929-style financial collapse, a stock market crash which led to the Great Depression.

"Suddenly revoking the President's tariff authority under IEEPA would have catastrophic consequences for our national security, foreign policy, and economy," they wrote in a letter.

"The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin."

Pay back money that we haven't received yet. Ummm. 🤣🤣🤣

Better check your safe rooms and bomb shelters for supplies.

1000000301.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
😆😆😆😆😆😆

Suck it Donald.

Constitution 1. Dumbass 0.

Once again, the Judicial Branch shoots you down.

You're not a king. You're not even a prince. You're a moronic Dictator wanna-be.

Hard to believe, but you're rapidly approaching lame-duck status only 8 months into your term, despite a fawning, gutless Congress in your corner.
but issuing tarriffs was completely alright for all other Presidents but not for Trump?

the ruling just further exposes how corruptJudicial branch truly is.
 
but issuing tarriffs was completely alright for all other Presidents but not for Trump?

the ruling just further exposes how corruptJudicial branch truly is.

🤣

Judicial Branch upholds the Rule of Law = Judicial Branch corruption

😂

The seat belt sign is now illuminated, ladies and gentlemen, as we're going to experience some turbulence here over the next several months while many of trumps illegal executive actions get shot down one by one. Please sit back, relax and enjoy the remainder of your flight.
 
🤣

Judicial Branch upholds the Rule of Law = Judicial Branch corruption

😂

The seat belt sign is now illuminated, ladies and gentlemen, as we're going to experience some turbulence here over the next several months while many of trumps illegal executive actions get shot down one by one. Please sit back, relax and enjoy the remainder of your flight.
Leftist judges are trying to create law and run the Executive Branch....it's why the USSC keep slapping them down overturning them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
😆😆😆😆😆😆

Suck it Donald.

Constitution 1. Dumbass 0.

Once again, the Judicial Branch shoots you down.

You're not a king. You're not even a prince. You're a moronic Dictator wanna-be.

Hard to believe, but you're rapidly approaching lame-duck status only 8 months into your term, despite a fawning, gutless Congress in your corner.

I'm sure he's low key monitoring VN, so your screaming into the void is likely a major point of concern in the White House and its denizens.

Hell, instead of getting your jollies writing ball-spiking missives to a head of state on anonymous message boards, you leftist folk should be popping bottles and loving all the rulings for the mere reason it's building up judicial precedence against actions you're not keen on.

This is one of my main problems with Trump; even if he is working toward a goal that has a logical kernel buried in it, in a nonzero number of cases the means and methods employed seem to be poorly planned and poorly executed to the point of moving precedence in the opposite direction, making it more difficult for a future admin actually run by conservative adults to be effective in advancing durable policy that sticks, particularly in the context of controlling both chambers of Congress. The dude is a walking, tweeting, unforced error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
You might want to look up some of the tariffs referenced before assuming your AI response actually supports your argument. If you were to do so, you might learn that those actions actually complied with the applicable legislative delegations while Trump's do not.
that is your legal opinion......the ruling against Trump by the Judges was 7-4 meaning 4 Judges are fine with what Trump is doing as being legal.
 
that is your legal opinion......the ruling against Trump by the Judges was 7-4 meaning 4 Judges are fine with what Trump is doing as being legal.
Correct. By an almost 2:1 margin the appellate judges clearly saw what Trump is doing is not constitutional as the power to levy taxes and fees rests in the legislative branch. (Article I Section 8 paragraph 1) They even wrote that into the majority opinion. And this was the second trouncing in the courts of Trump’s tariff policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
You might want to look up some of the tariffs referenced before assuming your AI response actually supports your argument. If you were to do so, you might learn that those actions actually complied with the applicable legislative delegations while Trump's do not.
Will be interesting to see if the GOP kisses the ring and writes legislation to cede their tariff power to the executive if SCOTUS rules based on what the Constitution clearly indicates where tariff power lies.
 
I don't know. This ruling is written in such a way that Gorsuch typically loves. He's generally opposed to unlimited power unmoored from legislative oversight. And Roberts will almost always defer to Congress when it comes to taxes. I think Trump is looking at a 5-4 loss at best.
*cough* ACA *cough*
 
This is one of my main problems with Trump; even if he is working toward a goal that has a logical kernel buried in it, in a nonzero number of cases the means and methods employed seem to be poorly planned and poorly executed to the point of moving precedence in the opposite direction, making it more difficult for a future admin actually run by conservative adults to be effective in advancing durable policy that sticks, particularly in the context of controlling both chambers of Congress. The dude is a walking, tweeting, unforced error.

1000000237.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
Easy prediction:

Some judges and politicians will be exposed for taking money from foreign entities.

...or maybe just maybe these tariffs are legitimately harming us financially.

🤪

More Trump drivel today:

"If you took away tariffs, we could end up being a 'Third World' country" Trump said.

So by Trump's rationale, earlier this year - prior to the introduction of tariffs - we were a Third World country.

1000000302.gif
 
I'm sure he's low key monitoring VN, so your screaming into the void is likely a major point of concern in the White House and its denizens.

Hell, instead of getting your jollies writing ball-spiking missives to a head of state on anonymous message boards, you leftist folk should be popping bottles and loving all the rulings for the mere reason it's building up judicial precedence against actions you're not keen on.

This is one of my main problems with Trump; even if he is working toward a goal that has a logical kernel buried in it, in a nonzero number of cases the means and methods employed seem to be poorly planned and poorly executed to the point of moving precedence in the opposite direction, making it more difficult for a future admin actually run by conservative adults to be effective in advancing durable policy that sticks, particularly in the context of controlling both chambers of Congress. The dude is a walking, tweeting, unforced error.
This ain't that far from reality bro..

What do you think doge is doing now?
 
Advertisement

Back
Top