r/politics • u/sweatycat New York • 19h ago

California to Negotiate Trade With Other Countries to Bypass Trump Tariffs

https://www.newsweek.com/california-newsom-trade-trump-tariffs-2055414
88.8k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

19.2k

u/wankbollox 19h ago

If Texas can ignore the federal government and make its own immigration policy, then I guess California can make its own trade policy. Seems fair. 

6.7k

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 19h ago

States setting their own trade agreements is totally unconstitutional, but we haven't been following that for a while now anyway. I'm hoping the whole west coast can form it's own trade coalition.

939

u/joshhupp Washington 19h ago

Yeah, we're at the point where anything "Unconstitutional" is up for interpretation because nothing is enforced. The current administration can't even be consistent when it comes to States'rights and federal oversight. Living in WA myself I hope they follow suit.

132

u/Fancy_Ad2056 18h ago

I believe the story was that Trump admired Andrew Jackson, back when he had his portrait up in the Oval Office during his first term. Andrew Jackson, famous for saying about the Supreme Court that “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” So that thinking tracks with the way this administration is operating

52

u/tomphoolery 14h ago

That remark was made after the court ruled against the forced relocation of the Cherokee, AJ then carried out the genocidal act that is now known as The Trail of Tears when they were marched from the Carolinas to Oklahoma.

21

u/taylorbagel14 13h ago

That’s why Trump likes him

→ More replies (1)

36

u/Politischmuck 18h ago

I'm sure it'll be selectively enforced. Texas setting their own immigration policy will still be allowed, but they'll come down hard on California for negotiating its own trade.

35

u/Ohmmy_G 17h ago

With so much of the administration just ignoring judges, I wonder at what point does California just say, "yeah, we don't care what SCOTUS has to say."

17

u/Atlein_069 16h ago

Hopefully immediately following any adverse ruling. SCOTUS is corrupt (we have the receipts!) and shouldn’t be followed. I’m hoping we can pass some type of law that nullifies their decisions from x period to x period. Especially ones that clearly depart from stare decisis

7

u/kex I voted 15h ago

they'll come down hard

What are they going to do at this point? Nobody's enforcing anything.

9

u/My_Password_Is_____ 15h ago

They're not enforcing anything because, to this point, the breaking of established rule and law has been a one way street. Only one side has been egregiously breaking the rules, and the ones in charge of enforcement are on that side. But you will see them (at least attempt) to crack down on the other side doing the same exact thing. Make no mistake, this isn't just an anarchic free-for-all, this is a fascist coup.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/Significant-Dog-8166 18h ago

The new rule of law is - If you can afford millions in legal representation, then do whatever you want, then roll the dice on partisan judges.

11

u/gmishaolem 17h ago

The new rule of law is - If you can afford millions in legal representation, then do whatever you want

What do you mean "new"?

16

u/Felonai 18h ago

Just because it's not enforced doesn't mean it's not unconstitutional. However, I simply do not care about that right now since nobody else does, so go California.

14

u/Ptricky17 16h ago

Without enforcement, laws are just suggestions.

Courts derive their power from people believing that their rulings are just. SCOTUS has become a laughing stock, and an obvious Kangaroo Court at this point. If California plays chicken with them over trade, what does enforcement even look like?

The Federal government is gutting all collective social programs that benefit states, so at this point they might as well go a step further and in addition to creating their own trade policies, just announce that they won’t take action against any company or individual that stops paying federal taxes.

At that point, what is Trump going to do? The only tool in his toolbox would be to threaten them with the power of the US military. I have much more faith in service members saying no to attacking their fellow Americans than I do to them refusing to invade Panama, Greenland, or Canada, so go for it.

Obviously this is all hypothetical, as I don’t think Newsom has the balls to go that far, but if he did - realistically what could the federal government actually do to push back against it?

•

u/ConstantStatistician Michigan 7h ago

GRRM was always right. Power truly does reside where people believe it resides. 

→ More replies (3)

4

u/EggsceIlent 18h ago

I'm with ya. Same state too.

Thankfully we do many things the same as our southern coast neighbor

Would be nice to see us join them in a coalition of sorts for the trade deal.

3

u/Gowalkyourdogmods 16h ago

Let's do like what the tech startups and the GOP have been doing, just go for it and let the law catch up.

3

u/HowManyEggs2Many 14h ago

Oh they’ll have no problem enforcing anything when it’s a blue state doing it.

3

u/masamunecyrus 10h ago

NM chiming in. I'd like to include NM and CO in this bloc.

AZ is increasingly purple. We can probably make it work.

→ More replies (4)

380

u/okram2k America 19h ago

The president setting tariff rates is also a violation of the separation of powers laid out in the constitution but we decided it was okay for congress to give their power to the executive branch for some reason.

47

u/BongRipsForNips69 17h ago

tariff rates is also a violation of the separation of powers

Congress increasingly took a less active role in levying tariffs directly, especially after the 16th Amendment’s ratification in 1913 led to a federal income tax that replaced tariffs as a main source of federal government revenue. In 1934, Congress passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which gave President Franklin Roosevelt the ability to change tariffs rates by 50% and negotiate bilateral trade agreements without additional approval from Congress. Since then, the president has mostly controlled and executed tariffs policies as defined by Congress.

17

u/redditlvlanalysis 14h ago

Because we basically got rid of broad tariffs after the great depression for a reason

28

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 18h ago

"The Imperial Presidency" has been a growing problem for a while. Trump didn't create all of these problems, but he sure has exposed the rot by doing every stupid thing imaginable and going completely unchecked.

3

u/DemiserofD 13h ago

But what has caused it?

I have a theory that it all is because of changing Senators to no longer be appointed. Someone tell me if this is crazy, but...

Before, Governors appointed Senators. They were supposed to be more free to focus on being skilled at their jobs rather than being skilled at getting elected.

Governors, in turn, had to be decent at their jobs, because they had a direct impact on their own state. If they were bad at their job, their own state would feel it first and immediately, and they'd be rapidly replaced(because their actions would be more obviously incompetent), so Governors were far more likely to be competent. They would, in turn, use that same skill to appoint skilled Senators, because those, too, would be a reflection on them.

But nowadays, Senators are largely divorced from their states. There's way more disconnect between them and the people, so people feel perfectly fine just electing the same guy again and again, no matter what they do. A lot of people don't even know who their Senators ARE.

This in turn has naturally led to senators becoming increasingly incompetent and beholden to their party rather than to their state's people, because the state's people will just vote for them regardless as long as they're still in the same party. Basically, Senators haven't NEEDED to be competent, and in absence of an incentive, things tend to regress to the mean.

And this has led to Federal Agencies and the Presidency getting more and more power, as Senators have become increasingly incompetent. Nowadays, the Senate couldn't really take control over things even if they wanted to, because they just don't have the skill to manage it.

Hence the 'imperial presidency'; a single overarching power against which the senate is incapable of standing without demonstrating their own incompetence, which by nature goes against the interests of the Party. As long as the president is willing to work with their own party, everything is fine...but what happens if you get a president who doesn't care what anyone else thinks? You end up with a situation where everyone is just kinda forced to go along with whatever they do, for lack of a better option.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Anxious_Cheetah5589 17h ago

We never decided that it was OK. SC hasn't examined the question. Hopefully, they will take a look, sooner rather than later.

There's also a glimmer of hope that Congress will do the right thing and vote down Trump's phony national emergency. The Senate voted 53-48 against him on Wednesday. The House may face intense public pressure to vote as well. Even Ted "finger in the wind" Cruz came out against tariffs. When enough jobs are lost, and enough inflation kicks in, and the stock market drops far enough, even the cowardly Republicans in Congress may grow a primitive spine and crawl out of the muck.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/OwlMirror 15h ago

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 does in fact gives the President that power. Why should that law not be constitutional? I am by no means an expert, but if it were unconstitutional would the SC not have declared it as such by now? Can the congress not delegate powers?

→ More replies (3)

3

u/UnderstandingBorn966 16h ago

If you have a power, you typically also implicitly have the power to delegate that power. This is pretty basic.  

→ More replies (1)

2.8k

u/jesuisapprenant 19h ago

Tariff powers don’t belong to the executive branch, the executive branch cannot defund programs unilaterally without Congressional approval, felons cannot run for office, the list goes on. 

509

u/Nevermind04 Texas 18h ago

Felons absolutely can run for office. The reason Trump can't legally hold public office is because he engaged in insurrection.

181

u/ameriCANCERvative 18h ago

Not just engaged in, led.

131

u/Nevermind04 Texas 18h ago

While that's true, section 3 of the 14th amendment doesn't require a person to lead an insurrection to become disqualified from holding public office. It only requires one to "engage" in insurrection, regardless of what exact role they played in it. Every J6 terrorist is similarly disqualified.

10

u/ameriCANCERvative 18h ago

Well, to be even more pedantic, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 makes a distinction between “incites” and “engages,” when it comes to insurrection, so perhaps he truly is eligible to be president if you go by the plain language? Perhaps “incites” is fine but “engages” is disqualifying?

Please note that I am NOT seriously arguing this point. I personally believe that this guy should receive the harshest punishment prescribed in 18 U.S. Code § 2381.

12

u/Nevermind04 Texas 18h ago

18 U.S. Code § 2383 does initially make a distinction between those two roles, but equally disqualifies both from holding public office. It's a distinction without a difference in the context of this discussion.

→ More replies (1)

12

u/Datdarnpupper United Kingdom 18h ago

I personally believe that this guy should receive the harshest punishment prescribed in 18 U.S. Code § 2381.

God, imagine

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (11)

5

u/mrpeabody208 Texas 18h ago

He didn't lead, he merely incited... then retired to the Oval Office break room to pound Diet Cokes and watch the chaos he caused unfold on TV.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

30

u/greenearrow 18h ago

and felons SHOULD be able to run for office, I would even say during serving their term. Otherwise, we incentivize making our opponents into felons (you know, like through making marijuana a Schedule I drug).

9

u/PaulTheMerc 18h ago

Just one question. Its fucking weed. WHY is that worth 10+ years to so many fucking people? I don't get it.

12

u/Mavian23 18h ago

Because it was originally used as a way of targeting anti-war hippies back in the Nixon era. The War on Drugs was political.

12

u/greenearrow 18h ago

Hippies, black people, and Latino people. It was to remove voting rights from groups that didn't align with Nixon, and to fill the prison system, which is the only place constitutionally allowed to provide slave labor.

5

u/PaulTheMerc 17h ago

Right, that part makes sense. So the war came and went, war ended, hippies kept it up, I get that.

Why does the next generation go "yeah, getting high is worth the clearly disproportionate cost?"

→ More replies (4)

6

u/Main_Tomatillo_8960 18h ago

Which is absolutely baffling…if normal jobs won’t hire most felons, why on earth are we accepting a felon in the highest office in the country? That’s insane hypocrisy.

8

u/ThatsGenocide 17h ago

Because then the ruling party just makes being one of their political opponents a felony and never loses an election again.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

958

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 19h ago

At least SCOTUS has been consistent in deciding what is constitutional: it's whatever Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation want it to be at the moment.

293

u/UpperApe 18h ago

I was wondering how long into the Trump presidency until states start considering seceding the union.

I did not have early April on my bingo card.

91

u/rataculera 18h ago

I have been saying for years that Trump is going to cause the west coast to form their own state. Eastern oregons movement to join Idaho is a kick starter

20

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 17h ago

Wait until they find out how dependent Idaho is on the blue states.

19

u/sn34kypete 17h ago

Pan handle Idahoans are already reliant on eastern WA for medical care. They flooded Spokane's hospital during covid and now that their hospitals are losing OBGYN and delivery teams, people are having to drive for hours to get proper medical care just to have a kid safely.

Of course when confronted with this, they're very proud of how smart they are for finding a solution for themselves, not a moment's introspection on how they got into this mess.

11

u/Repulsive-Row803 16h ago

I work at a hospital in Spokane. It's incredibly frustrating. We would never want to deny care based on ethics alone, but it's hard to listen to people shit on where you live while also taking advantage of the resources you provide that they vote against.

6

u/TehMephs 14h ago

While also rejecting the advice of those same doctors, denying they have a disease that’s very obviously the disease they have, and then thanking GOD for getting them through it so they can go back home and fantasize about murdering all those “corrupt liberal doctors” that saved them

Why don’t we deport these loonies instead? They refuse to live in the same reality as everyone else

→ More replies (0)

3

u/QueenCity_Dukes 10h ago

The hypocrisy is the thing. They want services for themselves but not for anyone else.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/glenn_ganges 17h ago

This is exactly what conservatives want. People don’t get this. They want governments to fail so we can return to a kind of feudalistic society where corporations have control.

35

u/Emilia_Violet 17h ago

People do get it, it just doesn’t matter. Certain members of the regime may want states to break apart so they can try to take control, but that doesn’t mean they actually get control. If the west coast broke off to ally with the rest of the sane world, I don’t think that puts the ones causing problems in a good position to seize control.

I’m not advocating for or against secession, but rather making the point that people are aware of what you’re saying, they just may not agree that the outcome will be the bad one.

11

u/Ptricky17 17h ago

I am also not convinced that a secession plan would be the worst thing for North America.

It’s clear that there is a deep divide in America, and honestly the roots of it go back hundreds of years. Half the country wants to be a religious (Christian) state with a return to segregation and 1950’s equivalent gender roles. The other half wants to live in the 21st century with an advanced, technology and service based economy, a tolerant multicultural society, and strong education.

Rather than continuing to fight with each other over the disagreement, it kind of makes sense to just split up so both sides can be happy. Of course, I predict that “Red America” will quickly become jealous when they realize they are poorer than “Blue America”, and that will only get worse the more they shun education in favour of religion, but hey “thoughts and prayers” right?

16

u/Dogllissikay 16h ago

Cities are blue in pretty much every state, so dividing states would leave a whole lot of “Blue America” trapped.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/daaave33 Virginia 18h ago

Can we come too?

3

u/Infinite-Speaker286 17h ago

The Northeast and West Coast, along with Canada, can surround the other states, and push them all into Florida

3

u/BikingThroughCanada 16h ago

And then we get Bugs Bunny to handle the rest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTa7OHEpyns

3

u/thequeenzenobia 16h ago

Well, but the eastern Oregon thing wasn’t trump related. They’re super conservative and want to be connected to red Idaho instead of Oregon

Edit: and have been trying to join for years and years

→ More replies (2)

5

u/coffeetime121 18h ago

He is ticking off boxes analogous to ol' King George every week.

4

u/neverwantit 17h ago

Secretary of State for California allowed secession to move forward back in January

→ More replies (4)

9

u/Andysue28 18h ago

Just as the founding fathers intended… ugh

5

u/ameriCANCERvative 18h ago

You got me there before the colon.

4

u/DimbyTime 16h ago

SCOTUS communicates directly with the lord almighty to interpret the constitution biblically, as Jesus intended 🙏

→ More replies (6)

3

u/AtOurGates Idaho 17h ago

Weirdly, even Project 2025 is anti-tariff.

We’re getting the worst possible version of the Handmaid’s Tale bits of Project 2025 along with the most insane economic policy imaginable that only makes sense in Trump’s head.

→ More replies (2)

9

u/IJustLoggedInToSay- Illinois 18h ago edited 18h ago

Tariff powers don't belong to the executive branch. However, Congress :

  1. Granted the executive branch the ability to take any "economic measures" in the event of a national emergency back in the 70s, and
  2. Granted the executive branch the ability to declare national emergencies with no constraining requirements, and
  3. Have declined to terminate Trump's flurry of bullshit national emergencies or impeach the president that is clearly abusing 1 & 2.

So, technically he does have the power to do these things, because Congress has explicitly and implicitily abdicated it to him.

It won't be enough to simply vote in Democrats and try to reverse the damage. These old laws that rely on people acting in good faith and assume that the executive branch isn't completely insane need to be completely rewritten.

EDIT! Number 3 is not entirely accurate, the senate did actually vote to terminate Trump's bullshit national emergrency tariff power.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-tariffs-senate_n_67eda172e4b047b3256b6b33

The Senate voted Wednesday to terminate President Donald Trump’s emergency powers to impose tariffs on Canada shortly after he announced even more aggressive tariffs in a celebratory “Liberation Day” event at the White House. The 51-48 vote marked a rare bipartisan rebuke of the Trump administration’s erratic trade policies amid heightened business uncertainty, turbulent markets, and growing fears of an economic recession.

However, it's not going to work because House Republicans are shameless sycophants and Chuck Schumer decided he's so wise and experienced that didn't need to actually read the CR he was voting for to keep the government from shutting down.

The bill has little chance of reaching the president’s desk, however. The GOP-led House sneaked a provision into last month’s government funding bill disallowing the lower chamber from considering such challenges to Trump’s trade authorities until next year

31

u/Jimid41 19h ago

Maybe the constitution needed a little bit of rethinking when the only branch of government it gave any bit of agency is the executive. Because nobody is going to stop him.

18

u/EarthRester Pennsylvania 18h ago

Congress does actually have agency, and even judicial can deputize martials (kinda) to bring in people to stand in front of a judge. While The Supreme Court has effectively made Trump immune to the law, the same cannot be set for his cabinet, and Rubio is technically the one to blame for ignoring the court order to not have that plane full of legal residents take off to el salvador, and then ignoring the order to turn it around after it did.

It's just that congress is complicit in this coup, and no judge wants to be the first to take physical action against the other two branches.

5

u/Jimid41 18h ago

When they're covered in security and their locations unknown then nobody deputized by the courts are getting near anyone in the cabinet. Congress was calling on Trump to get the national guard to Congress when they were overrun by rioters. They're not bringing anyone to heel even if they wanted to.

Even if it looked like the Senate was going to convict him he has no problem with interrupting their proceedings.

6

u/apatheticsahm 18h ago

Thats not exactly true. There are more powers given to the legislative branch than to the executive in the actual constitution. Over time, Congress slowly gave more and more power to the executive, until we have the mess we're in today.

3

u/definitelyTonyStark 18h ago

It was incredibly stupid to give the executive a monopoly on violence. The other branches should have armies to enforce their decisions, maybe even with enforcement from allied forces. Yes, that could be swung 2 branches on 1, yes political forces can corrupt that anyways, I still legitimately think it’s better to enforce a civil war to break the rule of law than to just it carelessly die to neglect.

→ More replies (6)

5

u/InsuranceToTheRescue I voted 18h ago

FWIW, there's nothing that says felons can't run for President. The only qualifications are:

  • American citizen since birth.
  • 35+ years old
  • Lived within the US for at least the last 14 years.
  • Hasn't served 2 terms already (22A).
  • Hasn't rebelled against the US after taking an oath to the Constitution (14A).
  • Hasn't been previously impeached by Congress & barred from federal office.

3

u/chris92315 18h ago

Felons can run for office. Traitors and insurrectionists can not.

3

u/dasunt 18h ago

Congress has unfortunately given some tariff power to the president, and the courts have upheld that.

Felons can run for president, btw. The Constitution lays down the restrictions on who can be president.

→ More replies (33)

523

u/palmerama 19h ago

Now the plot of Civil War doesn’t seem so far fetched.

384

u/Faux-Foe 19h ago

The biggest far fetched idea in there wasn’t the movie, it was which states were aligned with each other.

347

u/Emblazin 19h ago

That was by design so the right couldn't complain about being the bad guys.

269

u/rainzer 19h ago

then they complained anyway cause they recognize the fascist president as Trump

98

u/InsuranceToTheRescue I voted 18h ago

I mean, they were really big on The Boys until the Homelander parallels became clear to them.

46

u/Vohdre Illinois 17h ago

Which should have been 5 minutes after Homelander was introduced

38

u/animatroniczombie 17h ago

They're not the sharpest knives in the drawer

8

u/ActOdd8937 15h ago

Heck, they aren't even the sharpest spoons!

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

42

u/yungcdollaz 19h ago

I don't agree the president was supposed to be trump. he would've ordered a cheeseburger at the end

9

u/deekaydubya 18h ago

no he would've left the nation at the first sign of trouble lol

9

u/Imapatriothurrrdurrr California 18h ago

Berder*

→ More replies (1)

10

u/SCViper 18h ago

Nick Offerman wasn't wearing a diaper during filming so they couldn't have made that parallel.

9

u/nigelfitz 18h ago

and nick is a good looking dude

nice hair, no obnoxious tan, nicely fitted suit

61

u/SomeMoistHousing 19h ago

I'm sure it was intentionally noncommital on left/right politics to be more broadly palatable, but I wish it had been honest and just made the bad guys be the bad guys

9

u/rokerroker45 17h ago

I'm sure it was intentionally noncommital on left/right politics to be more broadly palatable

no, they were pretty clear on the bad guys being ultraright, they just didn't spell out which states those folks were repping

14

u/BlisfullyStupid 17h ago

Civil War wasn’t really a movie about American politics though.

It never makes any real statement about either side, pretty sure they don’t even really explain why the secession happened. The whole movie was about journalism in the same vein Hurt Locker was about the dopamine kick the protagonist felt risking his life.

Making the movie “bipartisan” seems the correct approach when you look at it that way. The context of the civil war seems more like the pitch to intrigue you since the current political landscape is very receptive to it, but the most political statement it ever makes is the “what kind of American are you?”

9

u/jcrestor Foreign 18h ago

It really wasn’t necessary.

3

u/xflashbackxbrd 17h ago

Its most logical if you presume the fascist president is feuding with constitutionist military leadership, most of which are stationed in California and texas.

3

u/machogrande2 13h ago

Whatever you do, do NOT watch the Red Dawn remake. And not just because it was a shit movie. They didn't want to piss off China(which would have been at least kinda plausible) so they went with the batshit insane idea of North Korea invading and holding territory in the US.

→ More replies (1)

20

u/gatorbater5 California 19h ago

i thought they liked being the bad guys

16

u/Elegant_Plate6640 18h ago edited 16h ago

They like being the bad guys, they don’t like to think about the consequences of their actions.

9

u/dunkolx 18h ago

I really like thinking about consequences for them. Like, a lot.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/UpperApe 18h ago

Wait you're telling the guys who fought for slavers and against abolishing slavery...

...were the bad guys?!

6

u/cosmicosmo4 18h ago

I see it as being because they wanted the movie to be about journalism during war, not about the political situation that led to the war. So they did their best to make it not make sense in today's actual political climate, but it's still super fucking clear that the divorced-from-reality, staying-past-his-term, FBI-dismantling white guy is more Trump than he is anyone else.

3

u/Emblazin 18h ago

Agreed. Which I think is important because it humanizes journalists who have been demonized since the advent of the internet and Russia's psy-op on the liberal world order started under Putin. Of course journalists have been demonized before then as well, but the same consolidating of power after the 1999 apartment bombings (Google Ryazan Incident) is possibly coming to America under Trump, or we move closer to the reality in Civil War...

→ More replies (3)

7

u/Lucas_Steinwalker 18h ago

Cowardly move designed to make a movie about civil war in the US entirely apolitical.

I get that the movie is actually meant to be about journalism, not politics but for me it is a huge miss.

→ More replies (5)

60

u/say592 19h ago

Yeah, that was clearly done intentionally to make it less of a red state vs blue state thing.

→ More replies (2)

127

u/xaviersi Texas 19h ago

From Texas here, we'd never align with California on anything even if they're in the right. Ethically, Texas has fallen quite a bit.

54

u/Broken-Digital-Clock 19h ago

Texan cities might want to work with CA, but they are surrounded by rural Texas.

22

u/xaviersi Texas 18h ago

As an Austinite, this hits so deep, lol

7

u/Broken-Digital-Clock 18h ago

Especially Austin

I could see a massive exodus from ATX to the west coast if things go further off of the rails

9

u/xaviersi Texas 18h ago

The rumblings are definitely there. In my household especially, I'm pushing for Minnesota, personally. Lol

4

u/Healthy_Ad_6171 18h ago

Same here. Thinking west coast though. Cause this is insane.

5

u/Larovich153 17h ago

Move to swing states and force them to go blue

→ More replies (9)
→ More replies (5)

6

u/Worthyness 18h ago

Texas rural folks would match California's rural folks. More trump fans in California than people in Wyoming.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

35

u/A_Furious_Mind 19h ago edited 19h ago

California has a bit to answer for, as well. But, given that their economy is absolutely gargantuan and they're basically carrying the US on their back, I find it hard to judge. It's not like my state is doing that.

25

u/azurricat2010 18h ago

People, esp the maga type, don't realize this. SF alone has a bigger GDP than most southern states, ranked 31st across all states. SF metro area would be ranked 13th across all states.

CA has a GDP around 4T which would rank in the top 5 of countries and only slightly behind Japan and Germany who are at 4.2 and 4.5.

SF has a GDP around 225B

SF Metro has a GDP of 668B

4

u/Buff-Cooley 18h ago

The Greater LA area also has the third highest GDP in the world, only behind NYC at #2 and Tokyo at #1.

4

u/azurricat2010 18h ago

Speaking of Greater LA. I "love" the maps that conservatives use to show how much support they have across the nation, not realizing that land doesn't vote.

LA county alone would probably rank 10th or so in population if it were a state.

8

u/Imapatriothurrrdurrr California 18h ago

4th largest economy in the world.

3

u/EggsceIlent 18h ago

They have something like the 5th largest gdp in the world.

Behind us(prolly formally),china,Germany,Japan

I'm sure after the last few days and months of Trump, that list has changed.

6

u/Ancient_Sentence_628 18h ago

Ethically, Texas has fallen quite a bit.

Ethically, Texas was always bottom of the barrel. I've seen how poorly they treat minorities and women and children there, as far back as 2000...

3

u/coleman57 18h ago

Willie celebrated his 90th at the Hollywood Bowl, LOL.

3

u/AllRushMixTapes 18h ago

Texas seceded from two countries so they could keep slaves. They haven't fallen that far.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/pyuunpls Delaware 18h ago

It was never a States vs States issue but conservatives wanted to make it that. So now here we are in the “Fuck around and find out” phase. States like Mississippi can rot.

5

u/ktwarda 19h ago

I think that was the plot driver though - it didn't seem like they were initially aligned but it got bad enough that they ended up allying together.

3

u/Bonesnapcall 19h ago

Actual people fighting as a cohesive army was the REALLY farfetched idea. A Civil War will much more closely resemble large, armed, protest groups meeting armed counter-protestors. Some shots will be fired, everyone will scatter. You'll have about a dozen or so casualties. That will be a daily occurrence.

3

u/ZellZoy 19h ago

Ehhh not quite as far fetched as it seems. There are a lot of Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California. More than many smaller states combined. I agree it's unlikely but it's not like, immersion breaking

3

u/throne_of_flies 18h ago

Get Texas on your side against a populist president with this one weird trick: nationalize the oil industry to solve an energy crisis

4

u/throne_of_flies 18h ago

Oh and 100% the most far fetched idea is that a group of boogaloo boys (hawaiian shirt soldiers who fought in the office building) would have no fat white guys

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Palchez 18h ago

There's kind of a quick line in the movie mentioning that they're only together to overthrow DC and then it'll those two against one another. But, yeah, I agree its the most unbelievable thing that happens in the entire film.

7

u/Roy-Southman 19h ago

Yeah, it honestly feels like the people who made the movie wussed out on calling it like it is with the political alignments of the States and which States would follow the insane president, which States would go against them, and which would go their own way.

→ More replies (9)

3

u/Ziograffiato 19h ago

While you were distracted watching for signs of WWIII, Civil War II snuck in the back door.

3

u/Top-Tie2218 18h ago

Bro, I watched that movie a while back, and each day looks more like that movie, It's not good.

→ More replies (11)

35

u/LiveNotWork 19h ago

When does something unconstitutional stop Trump from doing something? And why does it have to stop others?

→ More replies (2)

8

u/meanseanbean 19h ago

Y'all wanna come join Canada? It's pretty dope up here. We'd love to have ya. The rest of America can fuck right off though. Actually, we'll accept Vermont and the rest of the North East coast if they want to come.

6

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 19h ago

Y'all wanna come join Canada?

I've been flying a Cascadia flag for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_flag

Seriously, my family is talking about emigrating to BC. We're lining up our docs and going to talk to an immigration lawyer soon. Hopefully soon enough before SHTF.

3

u/meanseanbean 18h ago

WHAT?! We already have a flag?! Not gonna lie, that flag rocks. I visit Canada's 2nd largest Douglas Fir tree pretty regularly, at least once a year. It's quite the sight. Anyways, welcome to the club, I'll go grab your toque.

→ More replies (6)

6

u/jtoppings95 18h ago

Were way past the constitution at this point.

Its written in black and white in the declaration of independence that if a tyrant took the reigns, the responsibility of the states and the people is to retaliate.

Its right there. Its our duty to resist this however we can

4

u/kaji823 Texas 19h ago

It’s only unconstitutional when democrats do it

3

u/ChknMcNublet New York 19h ago

Hopefully my state follows suit 

3

u/Jelousubmarine Europe 19h ago

Putting in a good word for Colorado here. We voted for Sanders in 2016, take us in 🙏

→ More replies (3)

3

u/BeKindBabies 19h ago

It should be unconstitutional for a one ding dong to change world trade, but here we are - greatest country on earth.

3

u/bunkscudda 15h ago

Washington/Oregon/California would be one helluva trade coalition. Strong in almost all sectors.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/RubyRhod 18h ago

You would have to establish that the tariffs that are in place by the president were constitutional first - which they aren’t.

2

u/EggsceIlent 18h ago

Yeah he got rid of education and all sorts of other things to give it back to the states.

I say the states make their own trade.agreements with countries and themselves.

Because fuck this shit that's happening now

2

u/Le3e31 18h ago

Do you think that something like that could end in Civil War 2 if left unsupervised

2

u/pooballzak 18h ago

The Rs wanted EVERYTHING to be states rights - something something Tim Robinson following rules

2

u/throwawaypostal2021 18h ago

Maybe the East Coast minus DC can get in on it?

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Orqee 18h ago

The moment Trump stoped taking constitution as word to abide US became something else than constitutional democracy. I’m very sure no one voted for that. So why no one raising the issue with it? It is at least abuse of election system, trust of voters, and covert insurrection.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Cheetotiki 18h ago

True, but a foreign country could (and do) say that certain tariffs or benefits apply only to specific products made in specific states. Ask Kentucky about bourbon and Canada...

2

u/Traditional_Lab_5468 18h ago

Something something states' rights

2

u/ElectricZ 18h ago

Absolutely. The Constitution is like the Pirate's Code under Trump. It's more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

2

u/Papayaslice636 18h ago

States openly defying Washington is the first step towards secession and the end of the Union. Things could get very interesting.

2

u/Level_32_Mage 18h ago

Yep, straight outta Article I, Section 8, Clause I, if I'm able to read it correctly. But that only applies as long as we have a United States anyway, so...

2

u/ToosUnderHigh 18h ago

Oregon the really lucky kid with loving, supportive parents.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SpecialEdShow 18h ago

Washington, Oregon, California... and Minnesota, for good measure, join Canada.

2

u/hotdoginathermos 18h ago

1st step toward cessesion perhaps?

2

u/Janax21 New Mexico 18h ago

And New Mexico please, we’re also blue! Just gotta skip over AZ, lol.

2

u/BigAlsGal78 18h ago

I’m pretty sure everyone is in agreement the constitution don’t mean squat these days.

2

u/supermarketsweeps25 18h ago

…. Can they include New England too, please? We’re sane up here and didn’t vote for this nonsense

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Alt4816 17h ago edited 17h ago

We're on a runaway track for far more than a west coast trade coalition. We're walking towards a dissolution of the US so the west coast might end up an independent country. (Or 2 to 3 countries)

Republicans are quasi-anarchists who basically don't want a federal government. If they destroy enough federal agencies even economically successful red states like Texas might start questioning why tax dollars are flowing out of their state to a federal government that has abolished social security, medicare, the post office, the department education, FEMA, and more.

Now throw in these high tariffs where the federal government wants to collect even more taxes by taking 10% to 30% off the top of international trade. If California says no to these new taxes flowing from their state to the federal government then that's a major step in the dissolution of the country.

2

u/IronSeagull 17h ago

California can't do anything about tariffs on imports to the US, they're trying to convince other countries not to put tariffs on imports of things made in California. They're basically asking countries to do what some countries are already doing - target tariffs on things that hurt red states and swing states. That's not unconstitutional.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (113)

619

u/jeebus87 19h ago

What we are witnessing is a striking contradiction in American governance. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the message was clear: let the states decide. The federal government, through the Court’s ruling, signaled that the people of each state should determine their own course on some of the most consequential issues of our time. That was the rationale, state autonomy, local control, democratic self-determination.

Now, California seeks to do just that. Faced with sweeping tariffs that threaten the livelihood of its farmers and manufacturers, the state is exploring ways to shield its economy. But if the federal government refuses to allow it, or worse, actively blocks those efforts, then we are left with a troubling inconsistency.

The principle of states' rights cannot be a one-way street. It cannot apply to some issues and not others, depending on the politics of the moment. If states are trusted to regulate matters of life and liberty, they ought to be trusted to protect their workers and industries. To deny that now is not only inconsistent, it is hypocritical.

275

u/Gettingthatbread23 18h ago

Dang, if Republicans had a reading comprehension level above that of a Kindergarten aged child they'd be really upset.

34

u/1-760-706-7425 Washington 17h ago

When are they not really upset?

Bunch of snowflakes.

4

u/El_Rey_de_Spices 15h ago

"Facts don't care about your feelings!", they desperately scream through streams of tears and snot, their faces flush and limbs flailing with unrestrained emotion.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/bussy_of_lucifer 16h ago

No dude, they’re just arguing in bad faith. There is no amount of debating that will reverse this - republicans want to do something and will make up any justification, no matter how obviously hypocritical or outright incorrect

→ More replies (1)

18

u/Roklam Connecticut 18h ago

To deny that now is not only inconsistent, it is hypocritical.

There seems to be no understanding of what hypocrisy is, or what it communicates about 'you' to others in that space.

19

u/Itakethngzclitorally 18h ago

Inconsistent and hypocritical are the benchmarks of the current GOP.

4

u/DMvsPC 16h ago

Maine is getting the football pulled away constantly right now for not following papa Trump and instead following the state constitution and laws. All those states rights arguers? Oh, this is different they say? Gotcha.

13

u/DiabolicallyRandom 18h ago

It cannot apply to some issues and not others It can and has and does. I agree that "not via politics of the moment" but the constitution is clear on a great many things. Some things are reserved for the fed.

Anything NOT reserved for the fed is for the state.

All interpretations to date of the constitution stipulate international trade is regulated by the fed.

This was very intentional and explicit by the framers.

13

u/jeebus87 18h ago

You are absolutely correct that the Constitution draws clear lines, international trade, foreign affairs, the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, these powers are unmistakably delegated to the federal government under Article I, Section 8. And yes, the framers were deliberate in that design, not only to present a unified front in international dealings but also to prevent economic fragmentation among the states.

But here is where the tension lies. While the authority to regulate international trade rests squarely with the federal government, the consequences of those regulations fall unevenly across the states. When a sweeping federal tariff policy disproportionately harms certain states, say, California’s agricultural or tech sectors, it is not unreasonable for those states to attempt to shield their residents from the economic fallout, even if their tools are limited.

You are also right that some issues must be federal. But when federal action produces harm, and state-level mitigation is met with resistance, it strains the credibility of appeals to federalism in other contexts. The hypocrisy arises not from a failure to understand constitutional boundaries, but from watching those boundaries expand and contract based on political expediency.

So yes, the framers gave international trade to the federal government. But the federal government must wield that authority with a sense of shared national stewardship, not as a blunt instrument that ignores the real, localized damage it inflicts. Otherwise, the states will understandably fight for breathing room, even if the Constitution gives them precious little of it. And that, too, is part of the ongoing American story.

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (7)

3

u/PortugalTheHam 18h ago

I can bet were going to see a huge shift in federalism towards states in the coming years. I can imagine a usa where states have autonomy similar to the EU or the original articles of confederation and the federal government acts as a national security pact and a coordinator of interstate commerce.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/chrismsp 16h ago

Except that pesky clause in Article I that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce, which they promptly ceded to the president. The legal authority he's using is some economic emergency crap.

There are very few 'state's rights' when it comes to interstate commerce.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (38)

190

u/TheBatemanFlex 19h ago

Consistency? whats that?

141

u/denied_eXeal 19h ago

It’s something that’s required of Democrats but that is an afterthought for the Republicans

15

u/woodenblinds 19h ago

if that

3

u/killercurvesahead I voted 18h ago

rules for thee and not for me

8

u/mildcaseofdeath 17h ago

"These tariffs will just cause some Temporary Discomfort™️!"

"No I will not wear a mask in public, even to mitigate a global pandemic!"

- The same fucking people

5

u/Schonke 17h ago

For Democrats to follow and Republicans to cry for.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/BearGrzz 19h ago

Hey they want to states rights! Confederacy and all that

6

u/rgvtim Texas 19h ago

Never agreed with Abbots bullshit, and I don't agree with Newsom's either. But whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Ihatu 19h ago

Please, please please remind Republican voters of this fact every time they complain about California going rogue

3

u/A_Soft_Fart 19h ago

Watch the states rights crowd lose their fucking minds.

3

u/kandoras 19h ago

California isn't saying it'll have it's own trade policies.

It's asking other countries to exempt stuff made in California from their retaliatory tariffs.

"Please EU, Japan, and China - tariff Kentucky bourbon and jack daniels instead of California wines."

4

u/Keep_My_DMs_Weird 19h ago

California Oregon Washington should make our own trade pact. WEST SIIIDE - one I for each of us.

5

u/kw_hipster 18h ago

And the other shoe has dropped...

As the Trumpers continued to break, flaunt, ignore and selectively partisanly enforce rules, it was only a matter of time till their opponents started doing the same.

I know the Trumpers will be scandalized but this should have been expected

3

u/jaylward 19h ago

Yeah but it’s only fair when republicans can do that. States rights for republicans

3

u/GinjaNinja1596 19h ago

They're all for states rights aren't they? I don't see why they'll have an issue with this /s

3

u/giroml 19h ago

State's rights!

3

u/Meowgaryen 18h ago

And what guarantees there is that other states won't just buy from California or use California as a fake middle man? That's why Northern Ireland is so difficult to deal with after the UK left the EU but Britain is an island and Northern Ireland is on the same island that the Republic of Ireland is.

4

u/processterminated 18h ago

That is kinda the point. CA is where most Chinese goods enter the market. The executive branch has declared an "emergency" and enacted Tariffs. Let's see if they can even enforce them ;)

2

u/Wizywig 18h ago

No, it doesn't. The reason is because the law only applies to whoever they want it to apply to. California is no longer allowed to govern its own air quality.

The problem is that when the law is selectively enforced, the justice system collapses. This is what we are witnessing.

2

u/Tomimi 18h ago

If California created its own military and seceded I'm sure every country would support it.

2

u/composedmason 18h ago

Funny how Texas can blame Biden for all of their immigration and other problems but do whatever they want when it suits them.

2

u/TriLink710 18h ago

As a non american this feels like the first step to the dissolution of the US.

2

u/Fledgeling 17h ago

To be fair, Trump ignored the laws of the federal government putting the tariffs in place to begin with

2

u/deepstate_chopra 17h ago

"States' rights, buddy!"

2

u/ChinDeLonge 17h ago

Pritzker has already made a trade deal for Illinois with Japan, Canada, and Mexico -- it only makes sense that the largest economy in the country would do the same.

2

u/tomdarch 17h ago

No! "States rights" only means letting right-wingers do whatever the fuck they want in disregarding the Constitution and fundamental human rights! It's not allowed to work the other way around!

(/s of course)

2

u/MinderBinderLP 16h ago

This might be the Right’s end goal. End federalism.

2

u/jlm326 16h ago

Doesnt california have more gdp than like half the other states combined? I imagine California has some cards in this game.

2

u/William_d7 13h ago

Was this what happened before the events of Alex Garland’s “Civil War”?

•

u/Same_Disaster117 6h ago

Republicans always say they're for states rights

→ More replies (46)