Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Tariffs

[Vermilion]

So he’s going to continue to disregard the constitution. Neat.

He can still issue tariffs, they just have to be targeted and justified. There was a lot of dishonesty behind the “reciprocal” tariffs. Many of those nations didn’t have tariffs on US goods. Some were slapped with them because they had VAT (sales tax) or didn’t allow US goods like meat or agriculture goods because it doesn’t meet their standards. Some countries don’t allow hormones, antibiotics, and GMO in food.

Also, the problem with not targeting tariffs can have adverse effects. We’ve seen this with isolationism before. China is getting more deals and more exports than ever before. Their exports went up last year. So it’s hyperbolic to just say the Supreme Court is pro China because they interpreted and enforced the constitution.

MAGA is trying to act like a law that doesn’t even say tariffs, and directly says the context of it is emergency use somehow supersedes the constitution… the absolute supreme law of the land. 

Make that make sense.

You keep going on about Trump going against the constitution.
I couldn’t help but notice you never have mentioned the specific part of the constitution he’s allegedly trampling over.

[DBCowboy]

You keep going on about Trump going against the constitution.
I couldn’t help but notice you never have mentioned the specific part of the constitution he’s allegedly trampling over.

The Constitution limits government against US, we the people.

Tariffs don't limit us; they actually help us.

And before people jump on me about tariffs are taxes, then ask yourselves why do you support OTHER countries and their tariffs?

[RazorV66]

And before people jump on me about tariffs are taxes, then ask yourselves why do you support OTHER countries and their tariffs?

[CriticalStinker]

You keep going on about Trump going against the constitution.
I couldn’t help but notice you never have mentioned the specific part of the constitution he’s allegedly trampling over.

Trump v. Illinois in 2025 - Court ruled that Trump didn't have the authority to call in the National Guard without a Governors request.

That's an example where it got ruled on, but I'd say the President forcing troops into a state without their state elected officials is a serious violation. It's one that people have been concerned and warning about for decades now. The right even used to say it was going to happen under Obama, but now they celebrate it. The states are often supposed to have more rights than the federal government unless there are extreme circumstances.

His base doesn't realize the more he tries to claw while he has a favorable House, Senate, and Supreme Court, the more precedent that will be set for future presidents.

[DBCowboy]

Trump v. Illinois in 2025 - Court ruled that Trump didn't have the authority to call in the National Guard without a Governors request.

That's an example where it got ruled on, but I'd say the President forcing troops into a state without their state elected officials is a serious violation. It's one that people have been concerned and warning about for decades now. The right even used to say it was going to happen under Obama, but now they celebrate it. The states are often supposed to have more rights than the federal government unless there are extreme circumstances.

His base doesn't realize the more he tries to claw while he has a favorable House, Senate, and Supreme Court, the more precedent that will be set for future presidents.

Sounds like the South getting itchy about that "northern aggression"

[Vermilion]

Trump v. Illinois in 2025 - Court ruled that Trump didn't have the authority to call in the National Guard without a Governors request.

That's an example where it got ruled on, but I'd say the President forcing troops into a state without their state elected officials is a serious violation. It's one that people have been concerned and warning about for decades now. The right even used to say it was going to happen under Obama, but now they celebrate it. The states are often supposed to have more rights than the federal government unless there are extreme circumstances.

His base doesn't realize the more he tries to claw while he has a favorable House, Senate, and Supreme Court, the more precedent that will be set for future presidents.

Presidents have been doing that same thing, for decades.
There’s your legal and lawful precedent.

Seems like it’s only a problem when Trump does it, or something your lefty politics disagree with.
That’s a horrible precedent being set.
I’m sure you can agree.

[CriticalStinker]

Presidents have been doing that same thing, for decades.
There’s your legal and lawful precedent.

Seems like it’s only a problem when Trump does it, or something your lefty politics disagree with.
That’s a horrible precedent being set.
I’m sure you can agree.

I've criticized every president who's done it. Also, I've only voted for right leaning presidents when I have voted for a president. So don't know what you're on about that lefty talk. Disagreeing with Trump doesn't make someone left leaning, he isn't the head of an ideology.

Bush brought the Patriot Act and abused the AUMF.

Obama increased the Patriot Act, bailed out the banks and helped create some of the giants, and abused AUMF as well.

Biden tried to force the whole country to get the jab and pay off student loans with tax payers money. I believe he defied the court order too afterwards.

Trump ran on calling all that out, the debt, the corruption and wars. He's doing the same shit they did. I'm simply saying that's happening, and it's indisputable. He's not Hitler, hell, he's not the worse president ever so far. But this is happening, and if this was supposed to be the one who stopped all the corruption, than people need to wake up.

[Vermilion]

I've criticized every president who's done it. Also, I've only voted for right leaning presidents when I have voted for a president. So don't know what you're on about that lefty talk. Disagreeing with Trump doesn't make someone left leaning, he isn't the head of an ideology.

Bush brought the Patriot Act and abused the AUMF.

Obama increased the Patriot Act, bailed out the banks and helped create some of the giants, and abused AUMF as well.

Biden tried to force the whole country to get the jab and pay off student loans with tax payers money. I believe he defied the court order too afterwards.

Trump ran on calling all that out, the debt, the corruption and wars. He's doing the same shit they did. I'm simply saying that's happening, and it's indisputable. He's not Hitler, hell, he's not the worse president ever so far. But this is happening, and if this was supposed to be the one who stopped all the corruption, than people need to wake up.

You criticized Eisenhower when he federalized the Arkansas National Guard (and sent active-duty troops) to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock against Gov. Orval Faubus’s opposition?

Did you then criticize JFK when he federalized NG units in Mississippi (Ole Miss integration, against the MS governor) and Alabama (University of Alabama, against the AL governor)?

How about when LBJ federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect Selma-to-Montgomery civil rights marchers, bypassing the AL governor?

[CriticalStinker]

You criticized Eisenhower when he federalized the Arkansas National Guard (and sent active-duty troops) to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock against Gov. Orval Faubus’s opposition?

Did you then criticize JFK when he federalized NG units in Mississippi (Ole Miss integration, against the MS governor) and Alabama (University of Alabama, against the AL governor)?

How about when LBJ federalized the Alabama National Guard to protect Selma-to-Montgomery civil rights marchers, bypassing the AL governor?

I was more speaking about my lifetime.

But sure, I think I would criticize them for that. We shouldn’t have troops policing the people unless it’s life or death emergency. They’re not meant to police the people.

We could go back further and talk about when they put down strikes too in WV. 

But alas, that was just one example. And like I said, I’ve never claimed Trump is Hitler or even the worse president. But if you don’t like certain kinds of actions, then I think one should be consistent with that belief.

[Vermilion]

I was more speaking about my lifetime.

But sure, I think I would criticize them for that. We shouldn’t have troops policing the people unless it’s life or death emergency. They’re not meant to police the people.

We could go back further and talk about when they put down strikes too in WV. 

But alas, that was just one example. And like I said, I’ve never claimed Trump is Hitler or even the worse president. But if you don’t like certain kinds of actions, then I think one should be consistent with that belief.

When the states don’t, and can’t, enforce the law, that’s where the feds come in.
It’s specifically written that way in the constitution by the genius founding fathers.
The supremacy clause says the constitution is the supreme law of the land and states can pound sand if they don’t want to follow it.
They should rename it to the FAFO clause. LoL