This Is How You Lose the Tariff War

[Parkbandit]

So you think that gives Trump or America or you the right to treat them like shit after all the historical good will between us? To just be openly hostile for no good reason? Not only is that fucked up it's dumb.

All the historical good?

You mean like the unfair trade balance that is the entire reason for the tariffs? That's not "historical good" at all.

You mean like when Canadian troops BURNED DOWN THE WHITE HOUSE?!?! That's "HISTORICAL good"?

What about forcing Justin Bieber, Celine Dion and Nickelback down our throats??

[Suppressed Poet]

'

Why? No really. Why that attitude to what historically has been America's best ally?

They are wildlings beyond the Wall.

[ClydeR]

Before you start circle jerking your anime dolls in celebration, I’d advise you wait until the appeals court & ultimately SCOTUS rules on the appeal. You’re going to be disappointed.

How would you have ruled? Below is the statute in question. If you read the actual statute, which is the statute Trump chose to use, then you'll have a hard time being critical of the court.

I see three huge problems for Trump. First, the statute never mentions imposing across-the-board tariffs. It's about sanctions on foreign bad actors, not taxes on Americans. Second, Trump's claim that we have an "unusual and extraordinary" threat from every country in the world, including territories with no inhabitants, is ridiculous. Third, the history of the statute, as explained by the court, is that it was intended to prohibit Presidents from using emergency laws, as Nixon did, to impose tariffs except in truly extraordinary circumstances.

§1701. Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities

(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.

(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.

More...

§1702. Presidential authorities

(a)(1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise-

(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit-

(i) any transactions in foreign exchange,

(ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,

(iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities; and

(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest;

by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(2) In exercising the authorities granted by paragraph (1), the President may require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in paragraph (1) either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of such paragraph. In any case in which a report by a person could be required under this paragraph, the President may require the production of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.

(3) Compliance with any regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this chapter shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same. No person shall be held liable in any court for or with respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or pursuant to and in reliance on, this chapter, or any regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this chapter.



(b) The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly-

(1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value;

(2) donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency declared under section 1701 of this title, (B) are in response to coercion against the proposed recipient or donor, or (C) would endanger Armed Forces of the United States which are engaged in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; or 1

(3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 2404 of the Appendix to this title, or under section 2405 of the Appendix to this title to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18; or

(4) any transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country, including importation of accompanied baggage for personal use, maintenance within any country including payment of living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use, and arrangement or facilitation of such travel including nonscheduled air, sea, or land voyages.

More...

The statutes are easier to read on the above linked websites, where there is proper indentation.

BTW, Section 1702(b)(3) above seems to put the kibosh on Trump's announced 100% tariff on foreign films.

[Suppressed Poet]

How would you have ruled? Below is the statute in question. If you read the actual statute, which is the statute Trump chose to use, then you'll have a hard time being critical of the court.

I see three huge problems for Trump. First, the statute never mentions imposing across-the-board tariffs. It's about sanctions on foreign bad actors, not taxes on Americans. Second, Trump's claim that we have an "unusual and extraordinary" threat from every country in the world, including territories with no inhabitants, is ridiculous. Third, the history of the statute, as explained by the court, is that it was intended to prohibit Presidents from using emergency laws, as Nixon did, to impose tariffs except in truly extraordinary circumstances.








The statutes are easier to read on the above linked websites, where there is proper indentation.

BTW, Section 1702(b)(3) above seems to put the kibosh on Trump's announced 100% tariff on foreign films.

I don’t pretend to be an internet wanna-be judge, and neither your nor my opinion on the matter means anything. Since you asked, I would agree that our current trade agreements pose an unusual & extraordinary threat to our economy & national stability. I also believe Nixon previously set legal precedence.

How do you predict SCOTUS will rule on the appeal? That is the question you should be asking. They may take up the appeal petition as early as tomorrow. My gut tells me they will issue a stay order (halting enforcement on the lower court’s decision) while the merits of the case get litigated slowly by moving through appellate court & SCOTUS.

[Suppressed Poet]

And I just saw this in the news after my last post…

Trump tariffs reinstated by appeals court for now
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/05/29/...rt-appeal.html

Welcome to the slow wheels of American justice my leftist friends. It will be years before this gets sorted out. In the meantime, don’t blow you load over a lower court’s decision.

[Parkbandit]

How would you have ruled? Below is the statute in question. If you read the actual statute, which is the statute Trump chose to use, then you'll have a hard time being critical of the court.

I see three huge problems for Trump. First, the statute never mentions imposing across-the-board tariffs. It's about sanctions on foreign bad actors, not taxes on Americans. Second, Trump's claim that we have an "unusual and extraordinary" threat from every country in the world, including territories with no inhabitants, is ridiculous. Third, the history of the statute, as explained by the court, is that it was intended to prohibit Presidents from using emergency laws, as Nixon did, to impose tariffs except in truly extraordinary circumstances.

Again.. you're wrong.

Appeals Court just ruled in favor of Trump's tariffs, reversing the earlier decision: https://www.reuters.com/business/us-...st-2025-05-29/

You would think after 20+ years.. you would just take your opinion on any subject manner.. and post the exact opposite of it.

You would be far more right.

[ClydeR]

I predict the Court of Appeals, where the case is currently pending, and the Supreme Court, where it is ultimately headed, will both agree with the highly respected Court of International Trade that found these tariffs to be illegal.

[Methais]

Again.. you're wrong.

Appeals Court just ruled in favor of Trump's tariffs, reversing the earlier decision: https://www.reuters.com/business/us-...st-2025-05-29/

You would think after 20+ years.. you would just take your opinion on any subject manner.. and post the exact opposite of it.

You would be far more right.

That's how I predict what will happen next. I read whatever dumb shit ClydeRetard is posting, and then just bet on the opposite happening.

It's a a higher win rate than even Pelosi's stock portfolio.

[Suppressed Poet]

I predict the Court of Appeals, where the case is currently pending, and the Supreme Court, where it is ultimately headed, will both agree with the highly respected Court of International Trade that found these tariffs to be illegal.

The Court of Appeals, likely so. SCOTUS will not agree. We’ll find out when it makes it there and gets decided on in about 1 year from now. Until then, deference of authority is given to Trump and the government to enact these tariffs. By the time it actually does reach a final decision, we won’t have blanket tariffs imposed. There is no situation where the government would be ordered to refund tariffs, even if they were deemed to be illegally imposed (which they won’t). You lose.

[ClydeR]

The Court of Appeals, likely so. SCOTUS will not agree. We’ll find out when it makes it there and gets decided on in about 1 year from now. Until then, deference of authority is given to Trump and the government to enact these tariffs. By the time it actually does reach a final decision, we won’t have blanket tariffs imposed. There is no situation where the government would be ordered to refund tariffs, even if they were deemed to be illegally imposed (which they won’t). You lose.

Possibly. It's more likely that the stay imposed by the Court of Appeals was put in place to allow time to decide if a permanent stay should be imposed until the Court of Appeals is able to decide the case. In about two weeks, we should get an answer to that question. The original order by the Court of International Trade, which is now on hold, included a 10-day delay.