View Single Post
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 03-22-2018, 08:36 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
mr wonder mr wonder is online now
PW Enlightenment
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,072
Thanks: 9,764
Thanked 5,995 Times in 4,058 Posts
Default Re: Trump says U.S. to impose hefty tariffs on steel, aluminum imports

Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Despite grandiose claims of universal principles the SCOTUS tailors it's decisions narrowly. This is to prevent "interpretations" where contract law restraints on state law are erroneously applied to Presidential national security actions. The Court is explicit when they create a broader precedent it is not a matter of using all caps and text color.

Again, four separate laws have been cited, the statute cited by the President and three others giving the President authority to impose tariffs not create new laws. The response has been bluster and bombast.
Somehow I suspect that in your reading of the 2nd amendment and other parts of the constitution you tend to look at general principals and the clear language of various other SCOTUS rulings as being definitive and even general.
there's really no other honest way to approach the Constitution. It's a short doc. It's a framework that all laws fall under... are subject too... must align with.

But Hey, enjoy your ad hoc narrow style of interpretation where there are no general principals and some words of the constitution and SCOTUS only apply on the 3rd Tuesday if it's raining.
Many democrats interpret the constitution the same way. A "living" document and all. only means what they say it means... today.

So we'll just disagree then AZ.
But again, i hope you never whine the next time a Democrat CiC asserts that:
various laws, in combo with a presidential change in regs or executive orders simply override the plain text of the constitution.

There's nothing you've sited as justifying the Trumps actions that can't be repeated and applied on any other issue.
Tariffs, climate change, gun laws, immigration, drug laws, abortion, white collar crime, murder, robbery, terrorism, food regs, manufacturing regs, enviro regs, speech, surveillance, assembly, religion, private property, imminent domain, travel, taxes, health care, war, etc etc etc..

"national security" and a few random laws and BAM, Any president can make just changes.
AZ says that's always been "constitutional". Ever since the Barberry Pirates.

But to me, It's clearly just another lame and unconstitutional Presidential overreach of powers.
the constitution simply says.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, (tariffs) Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties (tariffs), Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;...

seems fairly clear to me that the President does not have the constitutional authority. Only the congress does.
But I'm told I'm reading and "interpreting" those few words with rabid grandiose hysterical bluster.

carry on

(constitution is pretty nice maybe some other nations would like to use it, we aren't anymore)
Hope is the dream of the waking man.

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8

Last edited by mr wonder; 03-22-2018 at 08:47 PM..
Reply With Quote