8 ms·
The global damage has been done. It took too long and it looks like it will only be partially reversed. Constitutional changes are required for other countries
by sschueller 8mo ago
The global damage has been done. It took too long and it looks like it will only be partially reversed.
Constitutional changes are required for other countries to trust in the stability of the US in the future.
- seydor 8mo agoI disagree. Despite all the talk and grand announcements of independence, most of the world wants globalization and worked for more of it, but maybe without the US (openings to china/india/LatAm). Now it will most likely be WITH the US. While the US may feel that globalization has been bad for itself (it hasn't - just look at the spectacular US economy) , the rest of the developed world is not in a position to reverse it (due to demographics mostly) and will be happy to jump back in.
- jezzamon 8mo agoPresumably congress could recreate the same tariffs, if they wanted.
- contagiousflow 8mo agoI'm guessing you're American?
- harimau777 8mo agoI think that a lot of people would disagree that the economy is spectacular. People can't even afford to buy a home in a decent part of the country.
- SV_BubbleTime 8mo ago>People can't even afford to buy a home in a decent part of the country. Is that because of scarcity? We’re manipulation? Or something else?
- zanderwohl 8mo agoThe economy is not spectacular by any means. It's about average on paper, and without AI growth (which will surely slow down like the .com crash) and increased healthcare spending, it's been mildly slumping.
- jen729w 8mo ago> Constitutional changes Y'all have proven how worthless that piece of paper is.
- pavlov 8mo agoThere are many countries that have functioning constitutions that are regularly revised. It’s not impossible for the USA to get there one day.
- stevenwoo 8mo agoWe still haven't fixed things caused by putting chattel slavery into the Constitution almost 150 years after a civil war.
- ceejayoz 8mo agoHell, we deliberately left it in. > Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
- pavlov 8mo agoWell, that's why I wrote "not impossible" rather than "likely"... These things can be fixed even though it's difficult. Sometimes the pressure just boils over. Americans are a lot more defeatist about their politics than in many other democratic countries.
- bdangubic 8mo agoit is impossible and it is great that it is impossible because you need one party to basically run everything at the federal level and vast majority at the state level which means that any changes to the constitution would be heavily politically motivated to one side of the isle.
- pavlov 8mo ago
- mongol 8mo ago> Constitutional changes are required for other countries to trust in the stability of the US in the future. For sure. Question is what would be enough to regain trust? I don't really see it happening
- kojacklives 8mo ago[flagged]
- jjtwixman 8mo ago[flagged]
- mamonster 8mo ago>In 2021 the US had the its best opportunity to date to assemble a military tribunal to try and then execute a President It's completely foreign to the US or the Anglo-Saxon world in general. The military as the final guarantor of state security is a continental European thing (and removing this has been the goal of many army reforms in Europe since the end of WW2).
- munk-a 8mo agoThe modern anglo-saxon world has been pretty limited in this respect - but Charles I of England is an excellent example of pretty much just this playing out and being solved with a national razor.
- mamonster 8mo agoI agree with you - I should've caveated that the Anglo-Saxon aversion to military coups comes precisely from Cromwell IMO.
- kojacklives 8mo agoThis sounds similar to holding up Ghandi as proof that violent rebellion is not necessary. Treating these incidents as proof about the current world presumes people in power lack the agency to examine history like the rest of us.
- tfehring 8mo agoI don’t see how constitutional changes would help. The constitution already creates separation of powers, limits on executive authority, and procedures for removing an unfit president or one who commits serious crimes. But these only matter to the extent that majorities of elected and appointed officials care, and today’s ruling notwithstanding, there’s no political will to enforce any of them. The plurality of American voters in 2024 asked for this, and unfortunately we are all now getting what they asked for and deserve.
- munk-a 8mo agoThe majority of American voters can be as dumb as they want - the two big failures here are the legislature and the judiciary. The judiciary let an obviously illegal thing sit for far too long while the legislature is too partisan to actually take actions against the administration (except in the case of the Epstein files which has been surprisingly admirable and a rare ray of light in the last year). If the majority of American voters elect snoopy the dog snoopy can do all of the things snoopy wants to do within the bounds of the law. Snoopy can use his bully pulpit to fight against dog restrictions in restaurants and grant pardons to previous offenders. Snoopy can ensure efficient spending of money on public water fountains accessible to canines... but if snoopy starts issuing open hand-outs to the red baron (snoopy in a moustache) that's when the other branches of government are supposed to step in - we aren't supposed to need to wait four years for the next election to stop open corruption (especially since corruption is really good at funding more corruption so there's a vicious cycle that can begin if you let it fester @see the recent FBI raid on GA election offices).
- hackyhacky 8mo ago> If snoopy starts issuing open hand-outs to the red baron (snoopy in a moustache) You mean like how President Trump just gave 10 billion USD of taxpayer money to a board operated by Private Citizen Trump? https://www.nbcnews.com/world/gaza/trump-board-of-peace-first-meeting-gaza-un-israel-rcna259509 https://www.nbcnews.com/world/gaza/trump-board-of-peace-firs...
- 8mo ago
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- SilverElfin 8mo agoThis is probably true. Even before this ruling Trump and Bessent and Lutnick have spoken about how they would react to such a ruling. And it looks like they’re going to do the same thing Democrats do when they don’t like a SCOTUS ruling, and try to implement the same tariffs in a slightly different way to effectively ignore the ruling. We have to fix this. The Supreme Court’s rulings and the US Constitution have to matter. There must be consequences for ignoring them - like the president or lawmakers going to jail. Even if part of the tariffs are rolled back, we may see other ones remain. And I bet they will not make it easy for people to get their money back, and force them into courts. Not that it matters. If people get their money back, it will effectively increase the national debt which hurts citizens anyways. And let’s not forget the long-term damage of hurting all of the relationships America had with other countries. If Trump wanted to use tariffs as a tool for emergency purposes, he should have just taken action against China and made a case around that (pointing to Taiwan, IP theft, cyber attacks, etc). Instead he implemented blanket tariffs on the whole world, including close allies like Canada. In the end, my guess is China and India gained from this saga. And the Trump administration’s family and friends gained by trading ahead of every tariff announcement. Americans lost.
- andsoitis 8mo ago> If Trump wanted to use tariffs as a tool for emergency purposes, he should have just taken action against China. What is the emergency with China?
- saghm 8mo ago> And it looks like they’re going to do the same thing Democrats do when they don’t like a SCOTUS ruling, and try to implement the same tariffs in a slightly different way to effectively ignore the ruling This is kind of a bizarre whataboutism to throw in there. The current administration (with the full support of Congressional majorities in both houses that have largely abdicated any pretense of having their own policy goals) has been flouting constitutional norms pretty much nonstop for a year now and literally ignoring court orders in a way that probably no administration has ever done before, and yet the playbook they're following for extrajudicial activity apparently is from the Democrats? Just because there's bad behavior on both sides doesn't mean that the magnitude of it is equal, and in terms of respect for the rule of law the behavior of the current administration really has no comparison.
- parineum 8mo ago> Constitutional changes are required for other countries to trust in the stability of the US in the future. I don't know about trust but the constitution isn't what enabled this type of behavior, it's the legislature. They've been abdicating their duties to executive controlled bodies (FCC, FDA, FTC, EPA, etc.) and allowing the president to rule through executive action unchallenged. They could have stopped these tariffs on day one. SCOTUS isn't supposed to be reactionary, congress is. The constitution has all the mechanisms in place to control the president, they just aren't being used by the legislature. It's a tricky problem that has a number of proposed solutions. I'm not going to act like it's a silver bullet but I think open primaries in federal elections would go a _long_ way towards normalizing (in the scientific meaning) the legislature and allowing people who want to do the job, rather than grandstand, into the offices.
- Ajedi32 8mo agoI think the root of the problem is our two party system and the polarization of our culture. Congress and the president often act as a single partisan unit, not a collection of independent thinkers with their own ideas about how the country should be run. That makes it very hard for congress to serve as an effective check on presidential powers.
- jajuuka 8mo agoThat's really the achilles heel of a checks and balances system. Should an ideology gain control of all of them then the system doesn't work and it immediately sinks into authoritarianism. The Supreme Court acting on this just unfortunately gives the illusion of things working when it's a game of blitzkrieg. Make an obvious illegal action and get as much done as possible then when you are eventually checked, move on to the next thing. Just keep pushing in different directions until you cover the board.
- buzzerbetrayed 8mo agoI love how it’s “global damage” when the US tariffs counties that are already tariffing them. But no, unfortunately the rest of the world knows the US’s value.
- sschueller 8mo agoLike Switzerland that basically has zero tariffs on export to the US but was initially slapped with 39% because trump can't stand women in power? What about Brasil where trump stated the 50% tariff is punishment for putting Bolsonaro in prison?
- jvandreae 8mo agoAh, yes, just like he hates Japan and Italy for being run by women.
- elsonrodriguez 8mo agoThere might be some political differences between these three women that may be relevant to the conversation.
- flipgimble 8mo agothe "global damage" is largely because these tariffs were arbitrary, lacking strategic planning, and highly inflationary creating a turbulence tax. The frequent reversals and selective granting of exemptions showed that its another tool to enrich the Trump family, cabinet and their business associates. In other worlds the rest of the world stopped trusting the US and started making trade deals on their own.
- root_axis 8mo agoGood luck ratifying any constitutional amendments that are in any way a response to MAGA.
- 15155 8mo agoGood luck convening a Constitutional Convention in the current (or future) political climate.