3 ms·
iirc as soon as anything becomes beyond the border the President holds the keys for various reasons including the ever-vague “national security” but also due to
by luxuryballs 2y ago
iirc as soon as anything becomes beyond the border the President holds the keys for various reasons including the ever-vague “national security” but also due to being prescribed as the primary negotiator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
- duped 2y agoTariffs are not treaties, they're taxes/duties - only Congress has the power to raise them. Article I is extremely clear on that. Historically, tariffs were always raised by acts of Congress, not by Presidential fiat. Trump is using extremely misguided legislation from the 1960s/70s where Congress allowed the President to enact tariffs for national security and emergencies. There is a very strong argument (in the sense it resonates with the conservative SCOTUS majority) that Congress cannot delegate its fundamental powers to the executive by legislation alone. I think people are just too cowardly to bring a case in front of the courts to challenge the constitutionality of it all. Non-delegation doctrine is what the Federal Society want to use to kneecap all federal regulation. Trump operates on a spoils system so it's not in the interest of conservatives or businesses to challenge him, for fear of retribution.
- slt2021 2y agoTrump is using tariffs not to raise revenue, but rather use it as a stick to force companies to invest in USA. Previously they were outsourcing and offshoring as much as they could get away with it. Which led to transfer of advanced technologies outside USA and America losing its manufacturing and technology edge
- johnnyanmac 2y agoSo how's that going? Outsourcing seems to be going strong, the tarriffs instead pissed off allies who are preparing counter-tarriffs, and the CHIPS Act is being dismantle as we speak (there goes our investment.
- slt2021 2y agoIf TSMC acquires Intel (which is in the works), then chips act (basically a government handout to private corp) wont be needed anymore
- cyberax 2y agoYeah. Just killing the US semiconductor production is the cheapest option.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoWell, until it isn't. It's cheap for Intel and the administration short term though.
- slt2021 2y agoI believe that the long-term plan is to turn TSMC into an American company
- duped 2y agoCool, still unconstitutional.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoSo, for those of us who haven't studied this in depth, why do you say it's unconstitutional? Do tariffs require congressional approval? Or what?
- warkdarrior 2y agoTariffs are a form of taxation. If I want to import say tea, and the government is placing a tariff on that imported tea, I am effectively taxed by the government. And only Congress can impose new taxes.
- nwienert 2y agoThe Trade Act of 1974 gives the president power to impose retaliatory tariffs.
- AnimalMuppet 2y agoNot saying you're wrong, but... I have seen claims that tariffs are a source of government income that Congress doesn't control. You're claiming they do. I haven't seen a citation from either side. Can you substantiate your position?
- duped 2y agoI have already explained my thinking up this comment chain. I'm mostly replying to GP who misunderstands that the intent of the tariffs is besides the point. TL;DR read Article I section 8, read up about the Trade Expansion act of 1962 and Trade act of 1974, and "non-delegation doctrine", and you can trivially find legal debate about the constitutionality of IEEPA. Rather than listen to random nerds on HN you should seek out this information yourself.
- llamaimperative 2y agoYou should let his Commerce Secretary know (or stop sanewashing) https://www.axios.com/2025/02/20/commerce-secretary-lutnick-irs-abolish https://www.axios.com/2025/02/20/commerce-secretary-lutnick-...