Mark Levin on Tariffs and courts.

T. A. Gardner said:
Yes, and if it weren't for the 17th Amendment, the Senate would actually have power to do stuff. As it is, between its filibuster rules and direct election it has become useless and ineffective.
Click to expand...
It's just a duplicate of the House now. The purpose of the Senate was to represent the States as States (their governments). The purpose of the House is to represent the people.

The 17th amendment should be repealed.
 
EdwinA said:
The Senate can, not the House. And most certainly not the Courts, especially those Courts with sitting judges appointed by a criminal syndicate, the Democratic party.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, the House can have a say as well, by passing a law (combined with the Senate) to prohibit treaties of a certain type or a certain country.

However, the President has primary authority over establishing treaties. The Senate can certainly overrule them, of course.

The practical upshot of all this is that no court has any authority to ban or limit Trump's authority over establishing treaties or over any aspect of the executive branch.
 
EdwinA said:
Nah, Lincoln killed it, and the corrupt post Civil War Supreme Courts made sure it will never come back. Republicans shot themselves in the head along with the entire country. That's why FDR is so hated by them; he made their looting and stealing a little more difficult. JFK actually helped bring it all back with his belief in 'technocracy' and big banking. By 1976 FDR's reforms were all gone, and the bubble economies and off-shoring began. We're now in a similar situation to the rest of the world that the South was compared to the North when Lincoln started his murder and looting rampage; we have a mono-economy built on debt instead of cotton, and the world's shitholes have all the factories and resources.

James Madison shut down a clause being added to the Constitution that gave the Federal govt. the power to use force against a state in 1787, during the Constitutional Convention. Lincoln and the northern financial interests didn't care about that and started a war anyway. They wanted free land, free railroads, and high tariffs.
Click to expand...
The United States has never suffered a civil war. The so-called Civil War was a war between two nations. I call it the War of Secession.
After South Carolina seceded from the Union (which it has a perfect right to do so), and the federal government refused to relinquish Fort Sumpter, the State militia fired upon it to force the federal government to leave and return to their own country. The first shots were fired by the State Militia of South Carolina. It could be argued (and quite successfully) that those shots were fired in defense of South Carolina's sovereignty (and with it the CSA's sovereignty).

The Confederated States of America (the CSA) formed their own army and defended themselves (which they also have a perfect right to do so). The secession by various States were over violations of the 4th amendment by the federal government (slaves are considered property).

The Union won that war, and the CSA was dissolved.

Both sides were right, and wrong.

Lincoln was right in trying to preserve the Union and to restore the lost States to the Union, and to end legal slavery.
He was wrong about how he did it.

The CSA was right in trying to defend itself, and about the federal government violating the 4th amendment in the taking of private property (the slaves). It was wrong in trying to continue slavery.

Today, of course, slavery is outlawed by Constitutional amendment. The slaves and their children were given full and equal citizenship via another Constitutional amendment. The CSA is dissolved, and all former States of the CSA have rejoined the Union and have stayed with it since.

The Constitution of the United States is still in force, as amended.

Are there people that want to subvert it and destroy it? Yes, certainly. Some even in government. There always has been since the Constitution was first established and ordained as the founding document of the federal government.

But it is not gone. By and large, the people support that Constitution as amended, and they support the federal government and each of the States of the Union. Radical Democrats, of course, are NOT by and large, the people. They are a loud and obnoxious minority, quickly relegating themselves to minor party status.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the commerce clause resides with the legislative branch. all things regarding commerce, taxes, tariffs, trade agreements, etc.
Click to expand...
Congress HAS given the President authority to lay tariff taxes for various reasons. Trump is NOT violating any part of the Constitution here, and neither has Congress. See Trade Expansion Act (1962), the Emergency Trade Economic Powers Act, and the Trade Act of 1974.

THIS is the authority by which Trump has been levying tariffs. It is given by Congress to the President using these acts. Congress can take it away again, of course, but so far they have not.

The Senate can overrule any tariff treaty.
 
Truth Detector said:
The Commerce Clause gives Congress broad power to regulate interstate commerce and restricts states from impairing interstate commerce.

So much for your argument. It's not about international commerce. DUH! In addition, you ignore Congress's delegation to the Executive certain constitutional duties through acts or just doing nothing.

www.wikilawschool.org

Constitution of the United States/Art. I/Sec. 8/Clause 3 Commerce

www.wikilawschool.org www.wikilawschool.org
Click to expand...
It IS about international commerce, and Congress HAS given all the authority that Trump needs to implement the tariffs.

NOTHING in the Constitution is being violated by either Congress or President Trump.
 
Into the Night said:
He was wrong about how he did it.
Click to expand...

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 specifically rejected granting the Federal govt. the right to use military force against a state. Such a clause was proposed by Charles Pickney of South Carolina, who ironically was also responsible for ensuring the protection of slavery by threatening the state's rejection of the Constitution. He was opposed to string stats' right, the exact opposite of later southern views.

AI Overview



During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina advocated for a stronger federal government with powers that could potentially involve the use of force against states
.

Specifically, Pinckney's proposals and arguments reflected the following:

    • Federal Control Over Defense: Pinckney argued that the federal government needed the power to raise its own army and control national defense, rather than relying solely on state militias.
    • Congressional Veto Over State Laws: Pinckney repeatedly proposed that Congress should have the authority to veto state laws. This would have provided a mechanism for the federal government to override state actions deemed inconsistent with federal authority or national interests. While this specific power was not ultimately included in the Constitution, it illustrates Pinckney's desire for a strong federal check on state actions.
    • Enforcing Federal Obligations: Pinckney believed that a government formed for the general benefit and security of the states should have the power to compel states to fulfill their obligations and prevent neglect or evasion.
It's important to note that the debate regarding the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government was a central theme throughout the Convention. While Pinckney's proposals favored a more robust federal government capable of coercing states in certain situations, the final Constitution reflects compromises that aimed to establish a system of shared power and checks and balances.

From Madison's diary of the Convention:

“On the question for giving powers, in cases to which the States are not competent,


[54]


Massts.ay. Cont. divd. (Sharman no Elseworth ay) N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay.Del. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay, S. Carolina ay. Georga. ay. [Ayes — 9;noes — 0; divided — 1.]


The other clauses giving powers necessary to preserve harmony among the States 〈to negative all State laws contravening in the opinion of the Nat Leg the articles of Union down to the last clause, (the words “or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union”,being added after the words “contravening&c. the articles of the Union”; on motion of Dr. Franklin,〉19were agreed to witht. debate or dissent.


The〈last〉clause〈of Resolution 6. authorizing〉an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration.


Mr.〈Madison〉,observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — , A Union of the States 〈containing such an ingredient〉seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State,would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause bepostponed.20HYPERLINK"http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057#lf0544-01_footnote_nt_135_ref"⚓HYPERLINK"http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057#lf0544-01_footnote_nt_135_ref"✪This motion was agreed to nem.con.


〈The Committee then rose & the House Adjourned〉21

[61]

“Motioned vz.


That each branch ought to possess the right of originating acts.


agreed.


That the national legislature ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the confedn. and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the seperate States are incompetent.


agreed.


or in which the harmony of the U. S. may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation.


agreed.


To negative all laws passed by the several States contravening in the opinion of the national legislature the articles of union, (or any treaty subsisting under the authority of the union, added by Dr.Franklin).


agreed.


And to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof.⚓HYPERLINK"http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057#Farrand_0544-01_527"✪


postponed.


Mr.E. Gery thought this clause “ought to be expressed so as the people might not understand it to prevent their being alarmed”.


This idea rejected on account of its artifice, and because the system without such a declaration gave the government the means to secure itself.”[/b]



http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1057
 
Sammy Jankis said:
and Sean hannity is a Jew-blowing douche canoe.
Click to expand...
giphy.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top