r/politics • u/sweatycat New York • 1d ago

California to Negotiate Trade With Other Countries to Bypass Trump Tariffs

https://www.newsweek.com/california-newsom-trade-trump-tariffs-2055414
92.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

56

u/GearBrain Florida 1d ago

Is it? Section 10 of the US Constitution:

Section 10: Powers Denied to the States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Section 8, however:

Section 8: Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To ...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

As a layperson, it would appear to me that the Constitution does not prohibit a State from entering into a trade agreement. I would assume it would fall under "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations", but words don't mean anything anymore, so Newsome can just give Congress the bird and do it anyway.

16

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

i feel like under this language, technically, states that import can completely ignore tariffs implemented by trump simply because the tariffs werent implemented by congress

3

u/taintedblu Washington 1d ago

I wonder if the courts could shoot that down by saying that the executive was only vested the authority to impose tariffs by congress.

2

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

That’s how I feel about this, I was listening to Rand Paul yesterday give his speech in the senate, which was a very good speech pertaining specifically to the Canada tariffs but applicable to these as well, that the president doesn’t have the authority to implement these tariffs under the emergency order he’s using, and in fact the constitution doesn’t allow the executive to impose tariffs simply because the constitution doesn’t allow congress to delegate away their power like the law says. It could simply be a case that no one brought it before a court to be struct down as unconstitutional

1

u/dohrk Oregon 1d ago

We've reached Air Bud levels of thinking already.

Christ this is exhausting.

2

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

What other avenues besides congress directly does the American population have to challenge the administration directly?

1

u/BoneyNicole Alabama 15h ago

Well, there’s the fourth box of liberty and a whole very pesky amendment that we can use.

38

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

Trade agreement has to be in the form of a treaty if it want to be enforceable in any shape or form

14

u/ObsidianSkyKing Illinois 1d ago

There are in fact tens of thousands of trade agreements that are not in the form of treaties that have been entirely functional worldwide for the past several generations.

1

u/bobbydebobbob 1d ago

It sounds like would be more like an exemption from another country's tariffs than a treaty

1

u/Oreo_ 1d ago

So what? A trade agreement doesn't have to be enforceable. they are mutually beneficial. If one side fucks up the other side can stop following the agreement at any time. It's a mutually assured benefit that is mutually lost once the agreement is breached.

What the hell enforcement are you even talking about?

26

u/SpaceGangsta Utah 1d ago

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

I think that says they can’t.

32

u/GearBrain Florida 1d ago

Trade deals wouldn't necessarily "lay an Impost or Duty" on imports or exports.

And the "except" clause gives a lot of wiggle room - in these modern days of Trumpspeak, Newsome can just say the trade deal is "absolutely necessary for executing" the state's inspection laws.

New inspection laws can be passed that says "do Trade Agreement stuff" and then, bam, it's Constitutionally legal.

7

u/F_B_W 1d ago

If they don't redefine a lower importation duty but instead not collect any at all, it sounds like they would be executing that section to the letter.

13

u/HowDoIEvenEnglish 1d ago

Negotiating exemptions from tariffs levied on American exports isn’t actually “lay[ing] any imposts or duties on imports or exports”

They also aren’t taking funds away from the fed.

CA cannot stop tariffs from being applied to imports coming into CA. That is clear. But there’s nothing in this passage that prevents them from negotiating exemptions with foreign nations as long as they don’t interfere with federal policy.

9

u/MissionCreeper 1d ago

Honestly, I'd say they can refuse to collect the tariffs.  "Ship to this port controlled by California, we will collect the duties as they existed prior to the EO, and ignore Trump's new ones" Congress didn't pass the tariffs.  Constitution says they have to do it.

3

u/sirhoracedarwin 1d ago

I think those are federal employees that work the ports

3

u/linguist-in-westasia 1d ago

Ports of entry have federal customs personnel...bypassing them would give the federal government a legal reason to increase their presence in the state at and around ports, which they already have...

1

u/MissionCreeper 1d ago

Hm, yeah thats a tough one.  Legislate payments to customs officials in exchange for ignoring illegal orders?  Is it a bribe if you initiate a payment to someone to not do something illegal?

1

u/HowDoIEvenEnglish 1d ago

Wel sure but that’s just ignoring an illegal law. So legally there are no tariffs to ignore. And such an action would likely be blocked by courts until matter was settled. A state can’t choose to ignore legal tariffs, and aren’t ports of entry run by federal agents anyway, so it’s not like they have to listen to newsome.

8

u/felldestroyed 1d ago

Conservative thinking here: it doesn't explicitly say the lack of duties. Only that more duties/impossible are illegal. Congress didn't impose the tariffs, ipso facto California can have free trade.

2

u/StoicFable 1d ago

That was my thought too. Nice little legal loop hole.

5

u/Ancient_Sentence_628 1d ago

I think that says they can’t.

Is that the same document that says every human in the country has a right against unreasonable search and seizure? You know the thing that doesn't apply anymore?

3

u/BODYBUTCHER 1d ago

they just need the okay from congress, no laws necessary

1

u/dohrk Oregon 1d ago

Which Co-president Dingus never got, he just issued an EO.

1

u/Oreo_ 1d ago

Revision and Controul of the Congress

Says they can. Their funds are no longer subject to congressional oversight as laid out in the constitution. The constitution was an agreement between states. California has been agreeing to give it's import wealth to the US Treasury as long as they follow the constitution and the laws that are ALREADY in place. Unfortunately the executive branch has decided not to follow congressional laws and is making their own rules now. Sure an EO is not a law but when you are disappearing people off the streets when they disagree with your EO and congress and the judiciary allow it to happen. Well what's a law? Nothing really... Just an idea... Without enforcement -oh the fuck well.

5

u/Rasputin_mad_monk Maryland 1d ago

So does that mean Velveeta Voldemort 's executive orders do not mean crap since Congress did not put them in place?

3

u/StoicFable 1d ago

Technically yes. But see if anyone actually does anything. The legislative branch has gotten far and away too comfortable not doing their jobs near as much or just holding things up in general.

6

u/blazze_eternal 1d ago

If for some reason Section 10 holds them back they can just claim the tariffs invalid due to section 8 not being followed.

3

u/Ancient_Sentence_628 1d ago

The current federal government doesn't concern itself with the constitutiuon anymore, so it's been nullified already.

We're just waiting until the rest of the people wake up, and realize this.

  • You have no right against unreasonable search and seizure.
  • Unelected Oligarchs are now considered government agents
  • Unelected oligarchs can hire mercs, and deputize them
  • The Law is what the POTUS says
  • What is legal, per the courts, is whatever Trump says
  • Term limits for POTUS are just suggestions
  • Birthright citizenship doesn't exist
  • Equal protection under the law does exist
  • Right to freely travel does not exist.

Did I miss anything here yet?

2

u/MissionCreeper 1d ago

They have the power to regulate, let them regulate it.  If my HOA has the power to regulate the color of my house, I can still paint my house.  If they don't like it they have to say something about it.

And as far as article 10, it doesn't say states can't not impose tariffs.

2

u/heartlessgamer 1d ago

Basically if it is a non-binding agreement it has, so far, passed scrutiny. But who knows with the bought and paid for supreme court.

While states like California have engaged in cross-border agreements (e.g., environmental initiatives like the cap-and-trade program with Quebec), these agreements often survive constitutional scrutiny because they are nonbinding, do not interfere with federal supremacy, and lack the "classic indicia" of a treaty or compact requiring congressional approval

1

u/Substantial_Effort95 1d ago

Section 10 says right there "no state shall, without the consent of congress.... enter into any agreement or compact.... with a foreign power."

You also quote Section 8. What Ill concede isn't clear from the face of the text is the Dormant commerce clause. Section 8 grants congress the exclusive power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. SCOTUS reads into this the "dormant commerce clause" which states that as Congress's power over such commerce is exclusive, states can not act in that space without Congressional permission.

You can fall back on "words don't mean anything anymore" if you want, but the implication of that is important (and I imagine California understands that.) You can reject the Constitution, but it still says what it says.

1

u/findingmike 1d ago

Meh, Trump said it's fine to ignore the Constitution.

1

u/Dr_Hexagon 1d ago

If Trump can ignore the constitution then states can as well.

1

u/thrash56 1d ago

This is essentially a replay of the Nullification Crisis, a precursor event to the the secession of South Carolina and then the Civil War.

Similar as South Carolina argued their power to "nullify" the effects of the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832, if California were to negotiate trade separately from the Federal government and Congress - an act which itself appears to be a prima facie violation of Section 10 - California would have to argue they have a right to nullify federal laws through enactment of their own trade agreements.

1

u/Godd2 1d ago

Tariffs of 1828 and 1832

One difference is that the Tariff of Abominations was passed by Congress, and was not an Executive Order.