How do conservative constitutionalists feel about Trump's disregard of the Constitution in regards to tariffs?

Last time in office he ripped up the free trade deal with Canada ,and wrote a whole new one now he won’t even honour that.
We our heading for very dark times but hey it’s what your country wanted.

There’s no point arguing that the tariffs will make everything more expensive -that’s the plan. Then everyone will buy made in the USA products and make America great again.

The fact this didn’t work last time just shows they didn’t go far enough with the tariffs and pro Trumpers aren’t educated enough to remember the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act and its effect on the US economy.

A tariff war is the last thing the world, or America, needs right now. Trump’s muddled reasoning is that this will force China to crack down on exporting fentanyl precursors into the United States. It’s so stupid an idea I don’t think even Trump will carry it out.

It’s within the power of the POTUS to assign and change the amount of tariffs. The OP is correct in what the Constitution says, however the Congress basically delegated the control of tariffs by passing the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. So Constitutionally what President Trump did in his first term of office and is planning to do in his second is within his purview.

As for driving prices up, that is only a matter of speculation, driven by TDS, bordering on fear mongering and not one that is supported by historical fact. When Trump increased tariffs on various countries in his first term, those countries largely ended up paying the tariffs, not the final consumer. In fact, they were so effective that President Biden opted to do nothing with the tariffs even though it was in his ability to lower or remove the tariffs. Those tariffs are still in place.

@seawulf575 “As for driving prices up, that is only a matter of speculation, driven by TDS, bordering on fear mongering and not one that is supported by historical fact.”. Your math skills are lacking – - – 10 % to 25 % added on to the price of the product when it arrives in the USA means things will cost 10 % to 25 % more….. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2024/11/26/trump-tariffs-china-mexico-canada/76584142007/

Also the exporting countries Canada and Mexico may STOP buying USA products, also their export can sell to other countries . . like lumber from Canada and petroleum from Mexico

And another thing ya got backwards Wulfie countries don’t pay the tariffs , companies do and they pass those costs to the consumers, countries implant ,and collect them that’s all.
OH maybe you should ask the rustbelt farmers how they did on your heroes last round of tariffs,or that nail manufacturer that shut down due to your heroes steel tariffs.

@Tropical_Willie you are using an article that gives speculation to say me calling that sort of thing a matter of speculation false. Here’s a better way to look at it, since we have historical evidence of what it did to prices. Practically nothing. Did we see prices skyrocketing under Trump? Nope. He implemented his tariffs in 2018. With tariffs in place and no skyrocketing prices I think we can safely say that they had very little impact on the prices. Yet all those same experts that are now fearmongering had the same fearmongering back then. They were wrong then, what makes me think they will be right this time?

Here’s another thought for you: Remember Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” plan that he worked out with Mexico? Do you know why they agreed to that? Because he threatened to implement tariffs on Mexico to offset the cost of our dealing with the illegal immigrants pouring over our southern border. So Biden came in and canceled that deal and what happened to illegal immigration? It skyrocketed…just like prices when he did away with being energy independent.

Tariffs have two ways of working: it helps level the playing field between foreign companies wages and US companies wages so jobs in our country are not lost. The other thing it does, and why governments want to avoid having to pay them, is the tariffs aren’t paid for by the government. They are paid for by the industries that are shipping goods to the US. As those companies expenses go up, they suddenly have to charge more and their profit margin goes way down. That hurts the economy of their home country. The governments of these countries suddenly see all sorts of economic failings in their land and they have to do something to avoid the damage those failings are causing (high prices, high unemployment, rapidly increasing wages, etc). It’s easier and ultimately better if they don’t get into a trade war. We worry about China, but China is struggling economically. They don’t want more tariffs.

TARIFFS cost the buyer, it doesn’t level anything like wages.

Also you keep throwing TDS around anytime you encounter logic and facts . . .

. . . my tale on TDS Trump is a Deluded Shithead

@seawulf575 Agree with you on Biden’s keeping of the tarrifs. But prices did go up, remember? Inflation was a big deal Although some of that was supply issues from Covid.

My question, though, isn’t about the economic benefits or harms from tariffs (although I admit to my snarky aside in the “more details” secion of my question.) My question is more about Constitutional authority.

I am generally pro-Congress and anti-executive powers. For example, I think that Congress should declare a war before we actually go to war. The Founders were very clear as to what powers belong to whom, and how the Constitution should be amended.

At least Rand Paul (who is not my favorite person by any means) still has his principles
https://reason.com/2024/11/21/the-last-chance-to-curtail-trumps-tariff-powers/

The Constitution does not apply to trump.

It’s another sign, not that we needed one, that Trump will govern the USA as though it were his own personal company. You are all to become employees of the Trump Organization.

@Caravanfan It’s cool. But as I said in my first comment, the Constitutionality is not really an issue. Congress passed a law that moved control for Tariffs effectively over to the POTUS. So from a Constitutional perspective, nothing is being violated. You might argue that the law passed in 1962 was unconstitutional. That would be a whole different discussion. But even that I’m not sure if you would have much chance at winning. Congress has the ability to pass on their responsibilities to the POTUS using laws to do so. I don’t think that is always the best thing to do and seems a bit like passing the buck, but sometimes it would make sense. I look at Trump’s first term in office. He made a concerted effort to push Congress to address immigration reform which they staunchly avoided doing. So he did a bunch through EOs, which his opponents patently hated. Both parties have squawked about the immigration reform issue for decades and yet no one ever actually wants to change a thing.

In situations like the tariffs, if his opponents don’t want him to have the power that he has, they need to repeal the law or rewrite it to be more in line with what they want. But Congress seems to be avoiding actually doing anything of substance and they have for decades.

There is no such thing as “conservative constitutionalist”.
Laws, morals, family values, they are all just talking points to them, a tool to attain power.
And they instantly stop caring about any of it the moment it suits them. Hence them electing a convicted felon, fraud and rapist.

@ragingloli You just described politicians around the world. As for Trump, you are missing some key points to US law. He was not a convicted felon since he never got sentenced. And even after getting sentenced, he can appeal and with the case in question he will undoubtedly win which would negate the felony. Not to mention he was never charged nor convicted of rape, so you are just showing ignorance.

@seawulf575 I wasn’t aware of the 1962 law. Looking it up, It’s called the “Trade Expansion Act”. Huh, I guess that answers my questions.

@seawulf575 – Trump was CONVICTED, but not yet sentenced: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/qa-on-trumps-criminal-conviction/

@RocketGuy Yes, sort of, but by the law, he isn’t considered a CONVICTED felon until he is sentenced. Yes, it is a bit weird, but that’s how it goes. That is why he could still vote in the past election.

@Caravanfan Yep. And I believe it is section 232 that really applies, if I’m not mistaken. Basically the POTUS can implement tariffs however he wants against whomever he wants if it is a matter of national security. The hard part there is the definition of “national security”. Is undercutting the US by selling materials made on the backs of slaves considered national security? Is letting illegal immigrants pour across our borders a matter of national security? These are questions the Congress would have to address or they just have to let the POTUS decide.

@seawulf575 And are you comfortable just letting POTUS decide all these issues on his own?

^I think it would be a case by case basis. Our government has grown increasingly dysfunctional over the past 40 years or so. Corruption has grown, division has grown…it is no longer capable of having reasonable discussions on any topic at all. Sometimes a decision has to be made. In some of the cases I’m okay with the tariffs. For the ones on Mexico and Canada, they were threatened only to get them to stop pouring illegal immigrants across our border. And the threat was taken seriously. Both the Mexican president and Trudeau in Canada have show willingness to discuss things with Trump when he takes office (if not before.). If we waited for congress to make a decision like that, it could literally take years or even decades to come to an agreement. Would I want Trump just pushing tariffs on countries like Great Britain or Germany or Israel because he felt like it? No, probably not good with that. And I’m not sure the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 would allow that anyway so any effort like that would be challenged.

It won’t be a case by case decision. For an intelligent, moral person, yes.
But with trump it will be based on how he can profit and to hell with the rest of the country.

@Dutchess_III (A) the case by case was my comfort level with letting Trump make decisions. (B) your analysis of Trump has been already shot down in his first term in office. He didn’t even take his salary. How can he be only about making a profit for himself if he didn’t even get paid? (C) He is threatening tariffs on Mexico and Canada to have them stop allowing illegal immigrants (and all the crime and drugs) pour across their borders with us. His tariffs on China were to help bring jobs back to the US…to level the playing field (trade-wise) with China. How are these things only for Trump and not for the good of the country?

While Trump was very open about not claiming his full salary, he was not so forthcoming regarding his federal income taxes and he took every possible legal route to delay their release.

Amusingly, when they did eventually see the light of day, they showed that in 2011 Trump paid less federal income tax than an undocumented housekeeper from Costa Rica working at Trump National Golf Club.

@flutherother That is a whole discussion in itself. But tell me, what does that have to do with the question? This is a general section.

I disagree. Trump’s dishonesty in financial matters and his contempt for federal institutions like the IRS has a bearing on how his tariff proposals should be viewed.

Dude doesn’t even know what a tariff is or how it workes.

How Tariffs Actually Work

@flutherother Okay, you want it to be a relevant statement, fair enough. So let’s look at it. You are saying he wasn’t forthcoming about his federal income tax returns. So what? He isn’t required in any way, shape, or form to publicly release his tax returns. So what are you saying? Are you just whining because he didn’t do what the left wanted?

But it goes on. His records eventually did see the light of day. This is correct. Except he didn’t release them. Some activist bureaucrat took it upon themselves to leak them to the press. Funny how you aren’t upset at an actual crime when it is committed.

And even more: You say he paid less than an undocumented housekeeper from Costa Rica in 2011. This has 2 pieces that need to be addressed. The first is why is an undocumented housekeeper working anywhere? If you wanted to get bunched up about that, I’d likely agree with you. There are laws concerning the ability of immigrants to work in this country. You have to have at least a work visa. So the housekeeper is breaking the law as is the employer. The second piece is the answer of: “So what?”. Trump’s detractors went over his returns with a fine toothed comb. He did nothing illegal. He followed the tax laws as they existed at that time.

This is why your statement brings up a whole different conversation. If you want to discuss the ins and outs of whether a public official should or shouldn’t air their tax returns is a matter of opinion. It isn’t required by anything. If you want to talk about people leaking his personal information and what should be done to them, that is another discussion. If you want to talk about undocumented people working, that is a third discussion. And if you want to talk about ways to improve the tax codes, that is yet another discussion. If you don’t want to have any of those discussions, your comment was nothing but a distraction from this thread…a “I Hate Trump” rant. This is borne out by your follow up calling him dishonest and having contempt for groups like the IRS. And what country are you from?

@seawulf575 It’s always a pleasure when you agree with me, however grudgingly. But I don’t call Trump dishonest. It is his own actions that point to his dishonesty, not me.

Yep @ragingloli. Trump flunked that class too. Because he’s so frakking stupid.

@ragingloli Great video.

@flutherother Except he didn’t do anything dishonest in anything you addressed. So yeah, saying his actions are dishonest when they aren’t is tantamount to saying he is dishonest.

oh brother. It is strong in that one.