Trump says he bombed Iran

[chr0naut]

I don't see how keeping already unequal tariffs is illegal

Hell we should probably completely flip the tariffs or just why not make it 50/50

Since when is 50/50 not fair

The US Constitution explicitly gives Congress the sole power of setting tarriffs.

If someone who is not in the Congress does do that, they are acting contrary to what is written in the Constitution.

[govshill2]

Wait till The MSM gets the newest Deep Rumor (most are true) verified.

Wonder WHY The U.S. and Israel went batshit squirrel nutz crazy on Iran so quickly both times in the middle of "talks" breakdowns with Iran stalling to obvious?

Wonder WHY Trump keeps "hinting" and emphasizing Iran won't get Nukes?

Well no surprise. Iran had nukes from Russia. Missile delivery was very very soon.

Iran plan was to corner the oil markets with key "elimination" limited nuke strikes!!

All making a little more sense now.

 

[DBCowboy]

The US Constitution explicitly gives Congress the sole power of setting tarriffs.

If someone who is not in the Congress does do that, they are acting contrary to what is written in the Constitution.

Citation please

[govshill2]

The US Constitution explicitly gives Congress the sole power of setting tarriffs.

If someone who is not in the Congress does do that, they are acting contrary to what is written in the Constitution.

but.............you maybe jump-a da-gun  

Later acts, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, further evolved this delegated authority. These allowed the President to act on national security concerns through tariffs or respond to unfair foreign trade practices. However, this delegation is not unchecked. For instance, Section 232 of the 1962 Act enables the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, but this is bounded by specific findings and processes.


Who Controls U.S. Tariffs? The Constitution vs. Presidential Power

[CriticalStinker]

Now they have the opportunity to interpret.

I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution or any other law that says a presidential executive order can challenge constitutional ammendments.

But again, lucky for you, I think your position will win out. Congress and SCOTUS have already decided on multiple occasions that the president should have more power than other branches. This isn't new, or the first admin to keep pushing these limits. But now the president does have legal immunity for the most part.

[CriticalStinker]

Citation please

Article 1 Section 8:

 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[DBCowboy]

I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution or any other law that says a presidential executive order can challenge constitutional ammendments.

 

Did you ever reading anything that it couldn't?

[chr0naut]

The US Constitution is very well written and the Bill of Rights adds to it.

The very 2nd amendment to it gives right for the people to take up arms against the government if they dislike it - apparently.

That implies that every nutter trying to gun down the President for whatever reason is only doing their Constitutional duty? Stupid!

... and how is that even regarded as a human right?

And where, in the US 'Bill of Rights', is the right to education, to healthcare, to a safe and healthy environment, to digital privacy, to reproductive autonomy, to food security and safety, or to accommodation? All of these are basic neccesseties of modern human living and should be protected by codified human rights.

The U.S. Constitution: A Flawed Document in Need of Continued Evolution.

[DBCowboy]

The very 2nd amendment to it gives right for the people to take up arms against the government if they dislike it - apparently.

That implies that every nutter trying to gun down the President for whatever reason is only doing their Constitutional duty? Stupid!

... and how is that even regarded as a human right?

And where, in the US 'Bill of Rights', is the right to education, to healthcare, to a safe and healthy environment, to digital privacy, to reproductive autonomy, to food security and safety, or to accommodation? All of these are basic neccesseties of modern human living and should be protected by codified human rights.

The U.S. Constitution: A Flawed Document in Need of Continued Evolution.

A Right is not contingent on the obligation of another to provide it.

[chr0naut]

A Right is not contingent on the obligation of another to provide it.

Precisely, but it is contingent upon another to not infringe it, especially in legislation.