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

8.2k

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

On One hand, that’s pretty unconstitutional

On the other hand, the constitution has already been shredded at this point, so who care

2

u/StoneCypher 1d ago

What part of the constitution are you referencing 

2

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

Article 1, section 10

3

u/StoneCypher 1d ago

Clause 2 says they can't add more

Which part of A1S10 are you referring to? I don't see anything in here that says they can't do this

3

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

First paragraph. Trade agreements are legally considered a form of treaty

4

u/StoneCypher 1d ago

Trade agreements are legally considered a form of treaty

I don't think this is correct. States enter into trade agreements all the time.

1

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

Here you go

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_regulation#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Constitution%2C%20through%20the,exclusively%20by%20the%20states%20themselves.

Memorandum of understanding is completely unenforceable

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-up-school-partnerships/guide-to-writing-a-memorandum-of-understanding-mou

A MOU is not a legally binding document

It is a statement of serious intent – agreed voluntarily by equal partners – of the commitment, resources, and other considerations that each of the parties will bring.

It has moral force, but does not create legal obligations.

1

u/StoneCypher 1d ago
  1. None of those are memoranda of understanding
  2. https://www.gov.uk/ You're referring to the government of the wrong country
  3. You appear to be trying to Google your way through this. Just admitting your mistake looks better
  4. You appear to be conflating two separate clauses. Congress is granted two powers there: a. commerce between the states (not this,) ie the commerce clause, and b. commerce with other countries by this country
  5. I guess seeing five of them in force for years from other states wasn't clear enough.
    1. Do you believe those are all illegal?
    2. Would you like 20 more?
    3. Is it interesting to you that 49 states have these, as do DC and PR?
    4. Care to wager a guess which state doesn't have one yet?

0

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

2.. Texas and uk

The “statement of mutual cooperation” is not a full trade deal because individual U.S. states do not have the power to sign those,

Your source

Your source 2, 3, 4 and 5 are literally between states and the uk

Canada (6) use the same system

Today Ontario and Indiana finalized a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Your source, FIRST PARAGRAPH

0

u/StoneCypher 1d ago

Can you explain to me why 49 states have these, why Texas has more than 50 of these, and why California has more than 40 of these, if you're smart enough to suss out that they're actually illegal?

Why should I trust you over the legislatures of all but one of the states in the union?

1

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

Why? Because it’s not legally enforceable, there’s no cost to making them OR breaking them. So everyone make them

0

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

Because it’s the international agreement of a pinky promise

Both the states and the uk can renege any and all part of the memorandum and lose nothing but their credibility

→ More replies (0)