The Tarriff Hype.
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
- Unitary Executive Theory: This is a legal theory, embraced mostly by some conservatives, which posits that the president has sole and total control over the entire executive branch and significant powers that are not subject to interference from Congress or the courts. Critics argue that an extreme interpretation of this theory transforms the U.S. into an autocracy.
- Abuse of power: This phrase is used to describe actions where a president uses their authority to pressure executive branch officials to be loyal to them rather than the law or the Constitution.
- Authoritarianism: Many scholars and political scientists characterize Donald Trump's actions and ideology (known as Trumpism) as having authoritarianleanings, which involves a strong belief that the leader is above the rule of law and seeks to accumulate all power.
- There is no single, official "tactical term" for a President operating on their own tangent regardless of the laws involved. Instead, political analysts, legal experts, and critics use a variety of terms and phrases to describe such behavior, often drawing on political science and legal theories
We can't complain in Canada.If the government ignores the Monday deadline, he said, “it is usurping Congress’s authority over the use of military force.” Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war. The president needs lawmakers’ approval for sustained military action under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which was passed in the wake of the Vietnam War to prevent another drawn-out, undeclared conflict.
Trump administration tells Congress war law doesn’t apply to cartel strikes — The Washington Post
The Office of Legal Counsel told select lawmakers that the executive branch is not bound by the War Powers Resolution, which requires congressional approval for any military action that exceeds 60 days.apple.news
A top Justice Department lawyer has told lawmakers that the Trump administration can continue its lethal strikes against alleged drug traffickers in Latin America — and is not bound by a decades-old law requiring Congress to give approval for ongoing hostilities.
T. Elliot Gaiser, head of the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel, made his remarks to a small group of lawmakers this week amid signs that the president may be planning to escalate the military campaign in the region, including potentially hitting targets within Venezuela.
“Venezuela has been very hostile to the United States and the Freedoms which we espouse. Therefore, any Country that purchases Oil and/or Gas from Venezuela will be forced to pay a Tariff of 25% to the United States on any Trade they do with our Country,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
Yet, American companies are buying Venezuelan heavy oil to feed gulf coast refineries? Venezuelan oil continues to make its way into the US even after sanctions were reinstated, due to a joint-venture license Chevron was granted to pump oil there. That license was set to be revoked on April 3, however, after Trump met with Chevron CEO Mike Wirth and other oil executives last week, the Treasury Department announced on Monday it would be extended to May 27. Does it continue to this day?
US Supreme Court questions legality of Trump's global tariffs — Reuters
U.S. Supreme Court justices raised doubts on Wednesday over the legality of President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs in a case with implications for the global economy that marks a major test of Trump's powers.
“If” it breaks with Trump on tariffs, it would be the first time the 6-3 conservative court has done so in a major argued case since the president returned to power in January. In case after case, the court has blessed the administration’s boundary-pushing policies on immigration, spending and independent agencies.
Takeaways from Trump’s rocky Supreme Court arguments over global tariffs — CNN
The Supreme Court appeared deeply concerned Wednesday with President Donald Trump’s reliance on a vague federal law to impose global tariffs, with several members of the court’s conservative wing picking apart the administration’s position in a case that could have sweeping implications for the...
The federal government has collected nearly $90 billion in revenue from the tariffs being challenged, according to United States Customs and Border Protection data as of September 23.
Earlier this month, Trump said in an interview with Fox Business that if the Supreme Court ruled against him, “we’d have to pay back money.”
If the tariffs were collected illegally, then…yeah! Those funds would have to be reimbursed, you’d think…?
Trade lawyers previously told CNN that the justices would likely be tasked with deciding who is entitled to a tariff refund if they rule against the president?
While several members of the court’s conservative supermajority gave mixed signals of how they may ultimately rule, the court’s three liberal justices made clear that they weren’t buying the arguments the Trump administration was attempting to sell.