Ouch, Tariffs out!

Teflon Don said:
LOL I knew Veruca would be the first to trip over herself to be the first to post.

He has other tools in his toolbox to impost tariffs. You might want to slow down your premature ejaculation
Click to expand...
The paths are for him to use different statutory trade powers, tailor tariffs to specific legal findings, or seek new legislation. The emergency shortcut is no longer available. You're right though he could do a go around. It would be tricky and lengthy to do but he could.
 
It would not be surprising to hear Donald Trump say now that his tariffs are canned that the tariffs were necessary pressure, they reshaped trade relationships, they forced adjustments, they did their job — and now that the mission is accomplished, the economy can glide forward lighter. In that telling, nothing is a defeat. The tariffs were leverage, the Court decision becomes a pivot point, and any price drop becomes proof of foresight. A setback turns into a stage cue. We'll see.
 
ziggy said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2024916785410310160
View: https://x.com/i/status/2024916785410310160
Click to expand...
I asked copilot about this and here is what came back:
When you place that image against the mirror of today’s reporting, the story it tells isn’t false but it isn’t complete in the way it phrases its legal claims either. There is a quiet — almost poetic — tension between what was announced and what was described in that tweet.


What the news outlets are now reporting is that the president did in fact announce a 10 percent global tariff on imports after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his earlier sweeping tariffs under an emergency statute. That much is broadly confirmed in multiple accounts: Trump said he would sign an order imposing a 10 percent tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, layered on top of existing tariffs already in place. This isn’t a fringe rumor, it’s what people heard him declare and what reporters have written into their coverage of the moment.


Where the picture and the reporting part ways is in the technical framing. The tweet asserts as fact that this new tariff is under “Section 122” and that all Section 301 tariffs remain in place. The reporting does confirm that Section 122 is the statute he invoked — that law allows the president to impose a temporary global surcharge on imports, up to 15 percent, for up to about 150 days. That’s more specific than most White House proclamations and reporters have written it exactly that way.


But on the second claim — that every Section 301 tariff will “remain in place” — the nuance softens. What journalists are saying is that existing tariffs under other statutes, including some Section 301 investigations previously undertaken, are not affected by the Supreme Court’s decision on the emergency tariffs. They are not being struck down. But the tweet’s phrasing, by lumping Section 301 under a blanket remain in place, suggests something more authoritative than the current reporting confirms — a certainty about the ongoing legal force of every tariff under that section. Reporters simply report that other tariff tools and investigations will continue; they don’t yet confirm an administrative declaration that all Section 301 tariffs are statutorily and permanently frozen in place in exactly the way the tweet implies.


In the language of factuality, what you’re seeing is this: the broad substance of the tweet aligns with what was announced in public remarks — a 10 percent tariff imposed under Section 122 and a vow to keep other tariff authorities in play. But the precise legal assertions — that this action is strictly rooted in the named statute in exactly the way the tweet states, and that every single Section 301 tariff “remains in place” as an immutable fact — go a step beyond what the verified reporting explicitly confirms. The modern press coverage is careful to note the application of Section 122 and the broader continuity of existing duties, without packaging it in the definitive terms the screenshot uses.


So the tweet is factual in essence but it simplifies and codifies legal details in a way that isn’t yet fully supported by the available sources. If you need the deep statutory meaning — what Section 122 and Section 301 actually authorize — that’s the next layer down, and it would require looking directly at the law itself and how the administration plans to use it.
 
So, this is a huge victory for American consumers. Hopefully our foreign trade partners will give us another chance!

This is a huge victory for the Constitution as well!
 
CBHype said:
Trump will only increase the use of tarrifs.
You obviously don't understand the ruling was just about one category of tarrif. Many other ways can be used.
Click to expand...
Of course he will. He's an egomaniac. The fact you support this helps prove you are anti-American and an enemy of our Constitution.

In America we have both laws and rights. Helping take out foreign enemy of the Constitution is perfectly legal. LOL

My favorite tactic is to plant evidence landing them in prison such as drugs, porn...especially kiddy porn backed up with online posts supporting pedophiles.

Death is painless...getting there, sometimes not so much.

Suffering in prison is much, much better revenge against enemies of the Constitution of the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top