US Tariffs, Sigh!

[JamesLam]

but who's making us sick? the foods we eat and the pharmaceuticals we take. they want us dependent on healthcare

I thought Kennedy was going to deal with this issue.

 

[JamesLam]

Back onto tarrifs.... Anyone following the supreme Court case?

Looks like it's going to get overturned and ruled illegal. Some people are saying it'll be a 7-2 decision, some a full 9-0 decision.

Of course that's based on the people who watch / report on the courts based on their tome and questioning, so it's not a form sure thing... And could still take months. But it's not looking good! And it's speculated that if it's ruled illegal that means businesses that have had to pay tarrifs will get a refund for it, which I'm sure all the money was already spent.


It's an interesting case to watch

It will be interesting to see if the tariffs are overturned if the decision(s) impact the De Minimis Exemption and the Informal Entries as well.

 

[ikarasu]

Yeah, I think the de minus affects Canada more than the tarrifs do since we have cusmca. I know it's destroyed temu / shein and all the Chinese sites.... I've heard most of the Canadian retailers on eBay / Etsy and all the online sites have pretty much had to shut shop.


We ship quite a bit to America... Before it was easy, now it requires pre clearing and providing cusmca certification saying the products were made in Canada with Canadian / USA goods... And even then, our customer for an $800 charge in a $4000 order... It took us a week to get it fixed, and we're told even with all the proper documentation ups is getting billed for goods it shouldn't, and they have no choice but to pass it onto the customer while it's being fought.... Shipping is a mess right now. Would be nice if deminis change and tarrifs went away!

 

[Johnny Best]

www.XXTurtles.com

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

 

[Geneva Olson]

I thought Kennedy was going to deal with this issue.

Hasn't he started already?

 

[MikePro]

welp if they read the Constitution, & subsequent laws, then SCOTUS will rule that the appeals court overreached on Presidential authority.
i wouldn't expect a canadian to notice such things, but judges should know better
...well they knew, but did it anyways to be political douchebags.

buckle up buttercup. daddy's here to stay.

 

[ikarasu]

welp if they read the Constitution, & subsequent laws, then SCOTUS will rule that the appeals court overreached on Presidential authority.
i wouldn't expect a canadian to notice such things, but judges should know better
...well they knew, but did it anyways to be political douchebags.

buckle up buttercup. daddy's here to stay.

Want to place $100 bet on that? Pretty sure scotus is far more familiar with the Constitution than Trump is. So I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is and say the tarrifs get ruled illegal by Scotus.

 

[MikePro]

reading is hard, eh? sure i'll take your $100

 

[ikarasu]

Not hard, I'm just actually following the case.

Trump didn't impose the tarrifs under that act, and even if he did the max allowed time he's allowed to impose them is 150 days.... At a maximum of 15%, Which it's been well past that, and his constant you Oprah style shouting of countries getting tarrifs above 100% throws that argument under the bus anyways.

Look forward to spending your $100!

 

[ikarasu]

welp if they read the Constitution, & subsequent laws, then SCOTUS will rule that the appeals court overreached on Presidential authority.
i wouldn't expect a canadian to notice such things, but judges should know better
...well they knew, but did it anyways to be political douchebags.

buckle up buttercup. daddy's here to stay.

I know it's a boring read. But rather than reading cherry picked highlights, I suggest reading the actual Acts - both sides are guilty of doing it, but people pick the sections they want others to see to try a d away people's opinions and ignore the important parts of the act.

Whenever I see people arguing and listing specific sections... I always find the actual article, because even if they're not cherry picking... A lot of people are using their own interpretations of what the act actually says.


Like almost every act, there's specific steps to follow for the president to impose the act.... None of which were done.


You can be for the tarrifs, you can feel he should be able to impose them.... 10 years ago I would have said the president of a country should be in charge of these things... But these past few months have shown me Congress / the constitution was smart to have 3 seperate powers.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11346

 

[MikePro]

yes, and congress authorized potus under section 301, as posted above
the president doesn't create the laws, he has the authority to implement/enforce.

...just like canada has the authority to waste $75million on an advertisement/propaganda campaign to nuke trade talks.

 

[ikarasu]

yes, and congress authorized potus under section 301, as posted above
the president doesn't create the laws, he has the authority to implement/enforce.

...just like canada has the authority to waste $75million on an advertisement/propaganda campaign to nuke trade talks.

View attachment 179721

Again...snippets from an article.

Read the act... You cant quote an act and say it authorizes the president to do something, then ignore the very blunt, very specific parts of the act that outline why the way he's doing it is illegal... I don't always agree with Scotus, but at least they follow what the law says, and dont just cherry pick.

Initiation. Any interested person may file a petition with USTR requesting that the agency initiate an investigation under Section 301. USTR must determine whether to initiate an investigation within 45 days. The law does not specify criteria for USTR to use when determining whether to initiate an investigation from a petition. USTR may also "self-initiate" a case after consulting with appropriate public and private stakeholders.

Here is how section 301 gets enacted - Did anyone file a petition with USTR? Was any trade investigation done? No.... so clause 301 was not enacted. Right there,your whole he's authorized under 301 is thrown out the window. Thats in the FIRST paragraph of the act,

USTR must request consultations with the foreign government at the initiation of an investigation. If consultations do not result in a mutually acceptable outcome, USTR must request formal dispute settlement proceedings under the governing trade agreement (World Trade Organization [WTO] or free trade agreement [FTA]). For investigations that do not involve an agreement, USTR generally has requested consultations with the foreign government and consulted with appropriate trade advisory committees as it initiated the investigation.

STILL the first paragraph - Did USTR ask for any consultations? Hell, they could consult Canada and say we want you to pay 500000% tarrif... Casnada says no, USTR can say "whelp, we tried" And impose a 500000% tarrif. But again, that didnt happen.


infact, I just did a quick search and the president isnt mentioned in the act even once. USTR is mentioned, USTR is not the president. The president can instruct USTR to do these things... but again, he never did... All of his tariff announcements are truth social posts.

 

[Geneva Olson]

Again...snippets from an article.

Read the act... You cant quote an act and say it authorizes the president to do something, then ignore the very blunt, very specific parts of the act that outline why the way he's doing it is illegal... I don't always agree with Scotus, but at least they follow what the law says, and dont just cherry pick.




Here is how section 301 gets enacted - Did anyone file a petition with USTR? Was any trade investigation done? No.... so clause 301 was not enacted. Right there,your whole he's authorized under 301 is thrown out the window. Thats in the FIRST paragraph of the act,




STILL the first paragraph - Did USTR ask for any consultations? Hell, they could consult Canada and say we want you to pay 500000% tarrif... Casnada says no, USTR can say "whelp, we tried" And impose a 500000% tarrif. But again, that didnt happen.


infact, I just did a quick search and the president isnt mentioned in the act even once. USTR is mentioned, USTR is not the president. The president can instruct USTR to do these things... but again, he never did... All of his tariff announcements are truth social posts.

with the way you talk, it's almost like you have a law degree....except you always seem to be wrong.

 

[ikarasu]

with the way you talk, it's almost like you have a law degree....except you always seem to be wrong

You always seen to make accusations but never back then up. I linked the congress passed, law document that lists the law.... Can you point out where I was wrong? Or are we going to throw out more accusations and change the topic again?

 

[JBurton]

it's not just a slogan. it is a responsibility. for instance: if a doctor happens upon an accident, they have to stop and assist

No they don't. Theoretically, starting treatment and 'giving up' without handing off a patient to qualified personnel could be considered the Dr. taking the patient under care and then dereliction of duty resulting in being liable for malpractice.

 

[Geneva Olson]

You always seen to make accusations but never back then up. I linked the congress passed, law document that lists the law.... Can you point out where I was wrong? Or are we going to throw out more accusations and change the topic again?

I back up everything I tell you, but you choose to ignore it. People just get tired of arguing with you because you refuse to accept accountability for your statements. But hey. if you choose to live with your head in the sand, that's on you.
Several people have pointed things out to you, but you tend to be quite obtuse.

 

[Geneva Olson]

No they don't. Theoretically, starting treatment and 'giving up' without handing off a patient to qualified personnel could be considered the Dr. taking the patient under care and then dereliction of duty resulting in being liable for malpractice.

Have you ever witnessed an emergency situation? I've witnessed several. people stay with them until the medics get there. so I'm not real sure what you're talking about.

 

[ikarasu]

I back up everything I tell you, but you choose to ignore it. People just get tired of arguing with you because you refuse to accept accountability for your statements. But hey. if you choose to live with your head in the sand, that's on you.
Several people have pointed things out to you, but you tend to be quite obtuse.

A lot of talk but not a lot of pointing things out

Again, I posted the actual article... What did I get wrong? If you copy paste some fix news article or random person's interpretation, sure it means nothing to me and I'll ignore it.

But find one thing in the actual article on the congress website that I was wrong with, we can discuss it and I won't ignore it.