Muda69 Posted April 8, 2025 Author Posted April 8, 2025 Trump's Tariffs Violate the Constitutional Separation of Powers https://reason.com/2025/04/07/trumps-tariffs-violate-the-constitutional-separation-of-powers/ Quote President Donald Trump has unilaterally imposed tariffs on much of the world. Yet the authority to impose tariffs is nowhere to be found in Article II of the Constitution, which is where the limited powers of the president are enumerated. Rather, the authority "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," as well as the authority "to regulate Commerce with Foreign nations," is to be found exclusively in Article I, which is where the powers of Congress are spelled out. Trump's trade war thus usurps the constitutional authority of Congress in violation of the separation of powers. The U.S. Supreme Court has confronted this sort of executive malfeasance before and struck it down with appropriate vigor in a number of notable cases. In Biden v. Nebraska (2023), for example, the Court declared President Joe Biden's student debt cancellation plan to be unlawful because it was an example of "the Executive seizing the power of the Legislature." Likewise, in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952), the Court rejected President Harry Truman's claim that his "inherent power" as president allowed him to seize control of most privately owned American steel mills under the guise of national security. "The President's order does not direct that a congressional policy be executed in a manner prescribed by Congress—it directs that a presidential policy be executed in a manner prescribed by the President," the Court observed. Yet "the Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times." Indeed, the Court added, "it would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand." Then there is Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935). At issue was the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, a far-reaching New Deal statute that purported to give President Franklin Roosevelt the authority to centrally plan much of the U.S. economy via price-fixing and other economic controls, all in the name of combating the Great Depression. However, as the Supreme Court unanimously pointed out in Schechter, "extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional powers." Neither Congress nor the president may "transcend the imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary." Furthermore, just as the president may not seize power from Congress, Congress may not surrender power to the president. In the words of the Court, the legislative branch "is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested." The congressional abdication at the heart of the National Industrial Recovery Act was therefore ruled "an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power." That principle is known as the non-delegation doctrine. When Trump's tariffs eventually come up for judicial review, the Supreme Court should take guidance from such past cases. Much like Biden, Truman, and Roosevelt before him, Trump has invoked the specter of an "emergency" to justify the use of powers that the Constitution unequivocally placed in the hands of Congress alone. Put differently, the Supreme Court has every reason to rule against Trump's tariffs and ample precedent to support its decision to do so. Agreed. The legislative branch needs to take back the powers it has basically abdicated to the executive branch. The U.S. Constitution demands it.
Sparty Posted April 28, 2025 Posted April 28, 2025 Thank the Lord for POTUS 47! Let him and his administration cook!!!!! 1 1
Muda69 Posted April 29, 2025 Author Posted April 29, 2025 White House denounces Amazon for plan to disclose cost of US tariffs: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/white-house-amazon-tariff-price-announcement-is-hostile-2025-04-29/ Quote WASHINGTON, April 29 (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday denounced Amazon's reported plans to disclose the cost that U.S. tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump were adding to its products, and slammed the retail giant for its past ties to China. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said she had discussed the Amazon plan, reported earlier by Punchbowl News, with Trump, and his message about it was: "This is a hostile and political act by Amazon." The comments sent Amazon �t;AMZN.O�ࢀt; shares down 2.2% in premarket trading. Amazon did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the Punchbowl report or the White House statement. Trump has imposed a tsunami of tariffs on U.S. trading partners, including China, which has seen tariff costs rise by 145% since Trump took office. "Why didn't Amazon do this when the Biden administration hiked inflation to the highest level of 40 years?" Leavitt told reporters at a White House briefing. Leavitt said Amazon's move was not a surprise given a 2021 report by Reuters that the tech company had partnered with a "Chinese propaganda arm." The White House tweeted a link to the Reuters report earlier Tuesday. "So, this is another reason why Americans should buy American," she said, underscoring the Trump administration's efforts to shore up critical supply chains and boost domestic manufacturing. So I wonder how Trump is planning on arresting Bezos or maybe deporting him if Amazon follows thru with this. I also think it funny that Trump's mouthpiece stated that "This is a hostile and political act by Amazon." where these tariffs are also a hostile and political act.
Muda69 Posted May 2, 2025 Author Posted May 2, 2025 Trump's Tattoo Fantasy Raises the Question: If He Were Senile, How Would We Know? https://reason.com/2025/05/01/trumps-tattoo-fantasy-raises-the-question-if-he-were-senile-how-would-we-know/ Quote The Trump administration concedes that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran who had lived in the United States since 2012, was illegally deported to his native country on March 15 due to an "administrative error." But it says there was good reason to expel him because he is a member of MS-13, an international criminal gang. That much is clear, President Donald Trump insisted in an interview with ABC News correspondent Terry Moran this week, because Abrego Garcia "had MS-13 tattooed" on "his knuckles." Abrego Garcia did not have MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles. Rather, he had four tattoos on the fingers of his left hand—a marijuana leaf, a smiley face with X eyes, a cross, and a skull—that the government has controversially interpreted as evidence of his alleged MS-13 affiliation. In a picture that Trump posted on X last month, the president is holding a photo of those tattoos, captioned "Kilmar Abrego Garcia MS-13 Tattoo" and superimposed with labels that include the characters M, S, 1, and 3 across the fingers. "They said he is not a member of MS-13," Trump wrote, "even though he's got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles." Although Trump clearly mistook those labels for ink that had been injected into Abrego Garcia's skin, he adamantly refused to acknowledge his embarrassing error when Moran pointed it out. That episode poses a puzzle that is apt to come up repeatedly during the next three and a half years: When Trump says something that is clearly not true, does it reflect his longstanding character traits, or does it reflect the sort of cognitive decline that forced Joe Biden to withdraw from last year's presidential race? At 78, Trump is four years younger than Biden. But by the end of his term, Trump will be older than Biden was when his disastrous debate performance made it plain that his mental faculties were slipping. And you can be sure that if Biden had displayed the sort of stubborn obliviousness that was evident in Trump's conversation with Moran, Republicans would have cited it as clear evidence of his encroaching senility. If you think I am exaggerating, watch the interview or read the transcript. The relevant exchange begins when Moran asks Trump about Abrego Garcia, whom he describes as "the Salvadoran man who crossed into this country illegally but who is under a protective order that he not be sent back to El Salvador." Moran notes that "your government sent him back to El Salvador and acknowledged in court that was a mistake." He adds that the Supreme Court has upheld an order requiring the government to "facilitate his return to the United States." Moran asks what the Trump administration is doing to comply with that order. Abrego Garcia "is not an innocent, wonderful gentleman from Maryland," Trump says. He is an "MS-13 gang member" with a history of domestic violence who "came into our country illegally." How does Trump know that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13? Although "he said he wasn't a member of a gang," Trump explains, "they looked" and saw that "on his knuckles he had MS-13….He had MS-13 on his knuckles tattooed." Moran corrects Trump, saying "he has some tattoos that are interpreted that way." No, Trump insists: "It says 'M-S-1-3.'" That label, Moran notes, was added by "Photoshop." Trump is incredulous: "That was Photoshop?" He thinks Moran is obviously wrong, because Abrego Garcia "had MS-13 tattooed" on his hand. Moran wants to "move on," saying, "We'll agree to disagree." But Trump will not let go of the subject. "Do you want me to show the picture?" he says "Go look at his hand. He had MS-13." Moran allows that "he did have tattoos that can be interpreted that way." Trump can't believe how misleading Moran is being: "Terry, no, no. No, no. He had MS as clear as you can be. Not 'interpreted.' This is why people no longer believe the news, because it's fake news." When Abrego Garcia "was photographed in El Salvador," Moran notes, he had no tattoos like the ones Trump is describing. "Oh, oh," Trump says. "They weren't there, but they're there now, right?" Wrong, Moran says: "They're in your picture." Moran really wants to talk about Ukraine, but Trump still thinks it is important to set the record straight: "He's got MS-13 on his knuckles." He adds that "you do such a disservice" by denying that supposedly documented fact. "Why don't you just say, 'Yes, he does,' and, you know, go on to something else?" Because that point is "contested," Moran charitably says before finally getting Trump to talk about Ukraine instead. Trump's manner, tone of voice, and persistence during this exchange suggest he sincerely believes what he is saying. He is not even willing to entertain the possibility that he might be wrong. In Trump's mind, it is Moran who is either mistaken or deceptive. You could say that is what you would expect from a man who continues to insist, notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary, that he actually won reelection in 2020. Trump, after all, has never felt obliged to acknowledge reality when it conflicts with his agenda or self-image. But advancing age can only expand Trump's capacity for self-delusion, and in this tattoo discussion he comes across as a confused old man. Consider another example: the special tariffs on Mexican, Canadian, and Chinese goods that Trump said were aimed at pressuring the leaders of those countries to help stop the flow of illicit fentanyl into the United States. Although that rationale never made much sense, it was at least comprehensible. The same cannot be said of the explanation that Trump offered on Truth Social last month: The aim of taxing imports from Canada, he said, was to "penalize Canada for the sale, into our Country, of large amounts of Fentanyl, by Tariffing the value of this horrible and deadly drug in order to make it more costly to distribute and buy." As Reason's Brian Doherty notes, that description suggests "Trump's understanding of what he's even doing is deficient," since he seems to think "his tariffs will be taxing and thus raising the price of the illegal fentanyl he fantasizes is flooding the United States from the north." That misconception goes beyond Trump's intermittent insistence that the cost of tariffs is borne by foreign countries rather than U.S. businesses and consumers. If Trump thinks he is "tariffing the value of this horrible and deadly drug in order to make it more costly to distribute and buy," he imagines that drug traffickers, whose entire business model is based on defying the law, nevertheless are keen to comply with his new taxes by declaring their imports at the border and forking over 25 percent of their value. Like the highly incriminating but imaginary tattoos that Trump thinks Abrego Garcia has, his assertion that drug smugglers are paying tariffs seems like a fantasy rather than a lie. But given the power that Trump is either exercising (in the case of tariffs) or declining to exercise (in Abrego Garcia's case), these are potentially consequential fantasies. Maybe Trump is just being Trump, or maybe his already tenuous connection to reality is slipping with age. With Trump, it is hard to draw such distinctions. Similarly, Trump's frequently puzzling rhetorical detours are not necessarily a sign of cognitive decline, since his style of speech has long been meandering and full of non sequiturs. I am not saying the president is senile. But if he were, how would we know?
Muda69 Posted May 13, 2025 Author Posted May 13, 2025 Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Destroy Thousands of Acres of Tomato Crops in Florida: https://reason.com/2025/05/12/trumps-tariffs-and-immigration-policies-destroy-thousands-of-acres-of-tomato-crops-in-florida/ Quote Thousands of unharvested tomatoes are being plowed over in South Florida in a sign of what is to come under President Donald Trump's tariffs—or tariff threats—and immigration policies. Reporting by Miami's local Fox affiliate, WVSN, revealed that farmers are cutting their losses and letting crops go to waste due to increased picking and packing costs. "You can't even afford to pick them right now," Heather Moehling, president of Miami-Dade County Farm Bureau, told WVSN. "Between the cost of labor and the inputs that goes in, it's more cost-effective for farmers to just plow them right now." Tomatoes are currently selling between $3 and $5. Farmers need to sell them for closer to $11 to breakeven. American farmers haven't been able to out-compete cheaper Mexican tomatoes currently flooding the market, according to Tony DiMare, president of DiMare Homestead, which owns over 4,000 acres of tomato farms in Florida and California. Even though the tariffs on Mexican imports never took effect for goods compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, including U.S. tomatoes, the threat of tariffs alone was enough to disrupt the U.S. market, Dimare told WVSN. "The Mexican industry exported, in some cases, double and triple the daily volumes to beat being subject to the 25 percent tariff in February and March and the 10 percent tariffs in April. That just devastated our markets in the U.S.," DiMare said. To protect U.S. tomato farmers from the harm caused by tariff policies, Trump plans to impose an import duty of 20.91 percent on most tomato imports from Mexico starting in July. The action, which will end a 2019 trade agreement establishing a minimum price on Mexican imported tomatoes, is expected to drive up the cost of tomatoes for U.S. consumers, according to Michael Strain, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Other South Florida crops are also being impacted by the Trump administration's trade war. Dimare told WVSN that some Florida watermelon farmers are seeing their Canadian clients source their watermelons from Mexico to avoid Canada's retaliatory 25 percent tariff on American melons. Labor is another concern: Immigration changes have driven pickers away. One homestead farmer, who chose to stay anonymous for fear of deportation, told WVSN: "A lot of people are really afraid and sometimes they come, sometimes they don't come, and the harvest is lost because it cannot be harvested, so that's why so much produce is lost." The Trump administration is aware of the strain fluctuating policies are having on the nation's farmers. In April, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said her agency is preparing a contingency bailout plan for farmers should the trade wars continue to escalate. "We are working on that. We are preparing for it. We don't believe it will be necessary," said Rollins. She also noted the federal government gave $28 billion to farmers during Trump's first trade war. While Trump is touting his recent deals with the United Kingdom and China as examples of how his trade policies are working, the Florida tomato industry serves as a real-world reminder that unpredictable policies can have far-reaching and unintended consequences on Americans' livelihoods. On some level, Trump knows this and has admitted that Americans will have to make do with less, despite being voted in to bring down the cost of living. The president's attempts at centralized planning will continue to drive prices up, and Americans will be the ones paying the price. Paying the price indeed. Mr. Trump's 2nd presidency is a failure, less than six months in.
Sparty Posted June 24, 2025 Posted June 24, 2025 Peace through Strength. Let all your TDS shine bright. On 5/2/2025 at 7:51 AM, Muda69 said: Trump's Tattoo Fantasy Raises the Question: If He Were Senile, How Would We Know? https://reason.com/2025/05/01/trumps-tattoo-fantasy-raises-the-question-if-he-were-senile-how-would-we-know/ Ole buddy was sent back to USA to be tried for trafficking. 1
swordfish Posted July 11, 2025 Posted July 11, 2025 SF Thought he might come back to the GID OOB to see how things are going. Pretty surprised to see that the last post was from almost a month ago back in June. With all the juicy topics going on (ICE raiding a weed farm in CA and finding minors working there, Biden's doctor, Epstein's alleged suicide, tariffs, floods, climate change, we bombed Iran, ETC. all within the last 2 weeks) SF was expecting to see pretty intense discussion ongoing. Guess I was wrong. The Political Forum (TPF) https://thepoliticalforums.com/forum.php is more active. Oh well. Enjoy Muda, he seems to be the lone survivor here.
Muda69 Posted February 25 Author Posted February 25 3 Bogus Economic Stats in Trump's State of the Union: https://reason.com/2026/02/24/3-bogus-economic-stats-in-trumps-state-of-the-union/ Quote President Donald Trump made many outlandish economic claims in this year's State of the Union address. Here are three of the most wildly wrong: 1. The Biden administration and its allies in Congress gave us the worst inflation in the history of our country. Inflation was pretty bad under President Joe Biden. Rampant deficit spending coupled with the Federal Reserve's "accomodative" monetary policy drove it to 8 percent. That's a dizzying figure, but it's not even close to the highest in American history. Even ignoring the double-digit inflation during and immediately following World War II, inflation was higher than this for three straight years, from 1979–1981, and also in 1974 and 1975, according consumer price index data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. 2. In 12 months, I have secured commitments for more than $18 trillion pouring in from all over the globe. Trump keeps making outlandish claims about the foreign direct investment supposedly fostered by the "deals" he's brokered with his illegally imposed tariffs. Reason has debunked these claims here and here. But even the White House isn't claiming the level of investment that Trump claimed tonight: Its website reports $9.7 trillion in total U.S. and foreign investments. 3. There's no inflation, tremendous growth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported annual inflation of 2.7 percent for 2025. Considering the Federal Reserve's target is 2 percent, 2.7 percent is not "no inflation"; it's elevated inflation. The Fed's preferred inflation measure, the personal consumption expenditures index, was even higher: 2.9 percent. "Tremendous growth" does not lend itself to quantitative evaluation but, to put things into perspective, the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that the economy grew by 2.2 percent in 2025. It grew by 2.8 percent in 2024. More B.S. from Mr. Trump. What does one expect?
Bobref Posted February 26 Posted February 26 20 hours ago, Muda69 said: 3 Bogus Economic Stats in Trump's State of the Union: https://reason.com/2026/02/24/3-bogus-economic-stats-in-trumps-state-of-the-union/ More B.S. from Mr. Trump. What does one expect? I expected more than 3. Of course, those are only the economic stats he got wrong. 1
Muda69 Posted March 12 Author Posted March 12 https://reason.com/2026/03/12/trump-goes-to-war/ Quote Priorities. Amid a war of choice in the Middle East that has killed seven Americans and hundreds of Iranian civilians (including dozens of schoolchildren), induced chaos in the global oil market, and cost taxpayers more than $11 billion already, President Donald Trump on Wednesday night turned his attention to the most critical threat facing America: Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.). Trump flew all the way to Kentucky to stump for Ed Gallrein, the presidentially approved primary challenger seeking to unseat Massie in the May 19 election. "We gotta get rid of this loser," Trump told the crowd. "He's disloyal to the Republican Party. He's disloyal to the people of Kentucky, and most importantly, he's disloyal to the United States of America." That's a lot of nonsense. In reality, Massie's great crime against MAGA-dom is his commitment to constitutional principles and his expectation that Trump should follow through on his own campaign promises. For example, Massie pushed for a congressional vote on the war with Iran (his effort was defeated), and has led the effort to release files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. You wouldn't think that would cause a rift between him and the man who ran for president by promising "no new wars" and vowing to get to the bottom of the Epstein mess. Massie also angered Trump for voting against the package of tax cuts that Congress passed last year. Massie objected to the fact that the bill would add trillions to the national debt, contradicting another of Trump's campaign trail promises. When Trump talks about "loyalty," he exclusively means the personal variety. Trump likes elected officials who are flatterers—even if they are literal socialists, because ideology and principle matter little. Massie's unwillingness to kiss the ring clearly irks the president, and it also makes him one of the few interesting characters in Congress these days. Ultimately, Wednesday's rally said a lot more about Trump's shortcomings as a person and a politician than Massie's. And as for Gallrein…maybe Trump can teach him a thing or two about lobbing insults? Yikes.
Recommended Posts