Its always fast in such instances.
Trump tariffs ruled illegal by U.S. court
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
QP!
Verified User
NO one is required to work. You can refuse work and thus never pay income tax. Thus Yakuda says there is no such thing as American citizens paying income tax as they CHOOSE to work and are not compelled to work and all taxes are compulsory.
/StupidityOfYakuda
QP!
Verified User
It shows the depths of stupidity Magats have to accept to agree with Trump.
Property tax... Income Tax... All consumption taxes (groceries, car, etc) ... etc are all not taxes by Yakuda's logic because a person is not compelled to take part in any of those activities. A person can choose to not work, not buy anything, and go on hunger strike and die and thus not pay any of those taxes and thus prove they are not taxes at all. Or so Yakuda is arguing.
QP!
Verified User
A large percent of americans exercise their OPTION to never buy property and thus never pay property tax. Thus not a tax as you have to opt in as you choose to Yakuda. Thus not a tax at all by your logic.
This is incorrect.
Tariffs are a fee charged by the government for a good and/or service and as such are, by definition, a tax.
The Executive has no authority to levy taxes, regardless of whether or not they affect foreign policy.
As to whether or not tariffs affect domestic companies, just ask the small business owners who filed the suit in the first place. Tariffs very much affect them.
(Edited to correct a typo)
Last edited:
It's a shame that:
A) You have literally no concept of the Constitutional limits on the Executive branch. They are co-equal branches of government, and it is their job to check each other so that no one branch has too much power. That was intended to ensure we never have the kind of authoritarian government that Trump and his accomplices are attempting to create. The court is not bogus, it's doing its job.
- B) The court is a three-judge panel made up of:
- One Reagan-appointed judge
- One Obama-appointed judge
- One Trump-appointed judge, Timothy Reif
- Reif wrote, "Because of the Constitution's express allocation of the tariff power to CONGRESS [emphasis mine]...we do not read IEEPA to delegate an unbounded tariff authority to the President"
And, because you specifically reference Article II, I'd like you to please show me where it states that the president may levy taxes and/or tariffs.
The Constitution is to be taken as a whole, not just the parts you like because they may (or as in this case, don't actually) support your cause.
To Republican judges (one appointed by Trump himself), one Obama-appointed judge.
I do love it when GOP and MAGA. so very typically, turn on each other because they don't like things like laws and/or the Constitution - and anyone who has the morals to to their job properly.
It wasn't reversed.
It's a pretty typical stay during the appellate process, and especially typical in cases that the court already knows is going to eventually wind its way to the Supreme Court.
The case isn't over, but I'd say it's a pretty open-and-shut case of Constitutionality, and the Constitution gives no authority for the Executive to levy taxes and/or tariffs.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
^^^Gee,.........I cant imagine why this chinky drill I paid 12.95 for doesn't work......
Anyone else notice how easily racism and misogyny roll out of the little minds of MAGAts?
Fat Boy has been know to use all sorts of racial and misogynistic epithets like chink, kike, spic, bitch, monkey, etc.
In addition to being a raunchy slut,..looks like she likes to steal money from poor kids too.
https://en-volve.com/2022/02/01/fbi...cam-stealing-millions-from-starving-children/
And,...hot off the presses from one of the leading papers in the Twin Cities.
https://www.twincities.com/2022/01/...cted-of-massive-fraud-in-child-food-programs/
https://www.twincities.com/2022/01/21/political-fallout-from-charity-raid-begins-to-unfold/
https://en-volve.com/2022/02/01/fbi...cam-stealing-millions-from-starving-children/
And,...hot off the presses from one of the leading papers in the Twin Cities.
https://www.twincities.com/2022/01/...cted-of-massive-fraud-in-child-food-programs/
https://www.twincities.com/2022/01/21/political-fallout-from-charity-raid-begins-to-unfold/
Stone;5969085 said:
Now, if we can just get CNN to hire Kamala Harris a ventriloquist and a monkey grinder we can have all kinds of fun!
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
1) Stop hiding behind a document that you despise.
2) Even IF what you are claiming is true (it's not), there's a major structural issue with how the trade court went about their bogus ruling, and they will lose because of it.
Tobytone
Verified User
The case has got nothing to do with the Constitution, and it shows you’ve been sipping the clickbait Kool-Aid. Who appoints judges often means squat about how they’ll rule. Deals get cut on both sides of the aisle, and history’s littered with judges who’ve zigged when everyone expected a zag. Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty knows this isn’t new.
If judges actually did their job upholding the law as written, not playing armchair philosopher about its morality or purpose it wouldn’t matter if a Democrat or Republican picked them. Judges aren’t supposed to write laws. That’s Congress’s gig. But you, like every other lefty drone regurgitating tired talking points, seem to think judges should bend the Constitution to fit your feelings.
Save the outrage for your echo chamber. Instead of parroting clickbait headlines from those who hate Trump more than you hate thinking, try cracking a book on how the system actually works. It’s not that hard, unless you’re allergic to facts.
By the way, I think this was already slapped down, as it should have been. This was just another attempt in a long line of attempts to try and stop Trump from succeeding. Libtards would much rather see America fail miserably for the next four years than about anything. Nice group of people you hang with. LOL
You've never read the Constitution, have you?
Seems pretty clear that's the issue, here.
The case has everything to do with the Constitution, Toby. Quite simply, as I've already said, Trump has no authority to enact tariffs and taxes. That is specifically made the purview of the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch. If you are not aware of this, I would recommend you refer to the Constitution, which is pretty clear on the matter.
Judges, in blocking the tariffs levied by Trump, ARE doing their jobs in upholding the Constitution. The difference between them and Trump is that while ALL of them swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, Trump isn't. Judges enforcing the Constitution's delegation of authorities isn't writing law. It's their job, which you lament they're not doing.
It is VERY important to understand that one of the judges that ruled against Trump was his own appointment. He appoints judges, departmental heads, and cabinet members because he believes they'll be loyal to them, NOT because he thinks they'll uphold their oaths and do the jobs they're SUPPOSED to do. In this case, a Trump-appointed judge actually did the job they were supposed to do. That matters.
It has not already been slapped down, much - no doubt - to your chagrin. The appeals court issued an absolutely typical stay of the lower court's order until the appeals process is completed.
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, the Constitution is to be taken as a whole, not just the parts you like because they fit your agenda.
Again, if you're not familiar with the basic jobs and allocations of authority which are written quite plainly in the Constitution, perhaps you should go and read it for the first time. Or maybe have someone explain it to you if comprehension is a problem.
Please show me in the Constitution, which you are arguing against while at the same time claiming I despise it, where Tariff and Taxation powers are assigned to the Executive.
Because it seems one of us actually knows what's in that document, and it's not you.
Tobytone
Verified User
Oh great, another sanctimonious dumbass libtard thinking he's a legal scholar because he pays close attention to The View. Sorry, but your constitutional 'lesson' is a dumbass swing and a miss. The Constitution doesn’t strip the President of tariff authority, check Article II, Section 2, and the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which explicitly delegates tariff powers to the Executive for national security and economic reasons. Trump’s tariffs, like those of many presidents before him, lean on this authority, not some libtard delusion of legislative overreach.
Judges blocking them aren’t “upholding the Constitution” but playing activist, cherry-picking their reasoning to fit a narrative. And that Trump-appointed judge ruling against him? Proves my point, judges rule unpredictably, not as loyal puppets, despite your predictably ignorant view of his appointments. Your smug lecture about reading the Constitution might land better if you didn’t ignore the parts that shred your argument. Maybe crack open a law book instead of preaching from your high horse, comprehension’s clearly not your strong suit. Maybe you should just let other's play lawyer, you kind of suck at it.
By the way, did your girls on The View forget to mention that your precious court ruling got slapped down yesterday? Trump’s tariffs are back on, courtesy of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit staying that lower court’s tantrum. Still clinging to your “no presidential tariff power” argument?
Let’s make it fun with a friendly bet. If I’m right and the tariffs stay, because Trump’s got the authority under Article II and the Trade Expansion Act, forget that anyone with a functioning brain should back them, you change your signature to: “Tobytone schooled me, he was right, and I’m a predictable dumbass libtard drone.” If you’re right, you pick my signature. Deal?