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

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

1

u/StoneCypher 1d ago

"It's illegal because trust me bro. Every state is doing illegal things because they're allowed to renege and lose credibility"

ok_buddy.jpg

0

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

Let go through all of your sources then:

  1. Illinois and Mexico

Pritzker’s office confirmed to Fox News Digital that the MOU – a non-binding agreement between two or more parties that expresses an intent to cooperate

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,

  1. uk and north carolina

The UK today signs its second trade and economic Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a US state – North Carolina.

  1. Indiana and uk

The UK marks a milestone in trade relations with the US by signing its first state-level Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Indiana.

From a website called www.gov.uk. Aka, your sources

  1. Ontario and Indiana

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

Canadian government website

Non-Binding means the parties are not obligated to carry out the terms of the MOU. Non-binding is ideal when the parties are still determining if their relationship is viable; if it turns out that the parties cannot come to an agreement on key terms after the MOU is signed, a party can just walk away without legal consequences.

https://legal.utoronto.ca/introduction-to-mous/

Okaybuddy.jpg

Here’s the BAKER INSTITUTE

In the United States, the two major constitutional impediments to states concluding international trade agreements are the commerce clause and the outright ban on states entering into treaties. The commerce clause of the Constitution — Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 — affords Congress the exclusive power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”[22] With regard to agreements with foreign nations, Article 1, Section 10, clauses 1 and 3 of the Constitution are also highly restrictive: “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation,” and “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”[23] Nevertheless, there are many instances in which U.S. states have concluded less formal arrangements with foreign powers, often termed “MOUs.” These have been generally accepted if they are explicitly or implicitly nonbinding. For example, several years ago, California among other U.S. states which were reacting to the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement of 2015 — an international agreement in response to climate change — concluded MOUs with other nations, e.g., with China in November 2018 and April 2022. In their MOU, California and China undertook to comply with the Paris Agreement’s requirements. Both 2018 and the 2022 MOUs specifically note that they are voluntary and not legally binding — similar to the Paris Agreement — and must comply with “all applicable laws.”

Oh look at that, im using google to find sources while you are pulling evidence from your ass

1

u/StoneCypher 1d ago

Oh look at that, im using google to find sources

Cool story. Let me know when you answer the question I asked you

 

From a website called www.gov.uk. Aka, your sources

I never used the UK government as a source.

1

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

Because it’s not legally binding

Questions were raised in April 2022 when Texas Gov. Abbott concluded MOUs with each of the four Mexican states bordering Texas, with the alleged intention of reducing illegal immigration, drug trafficking via highways, and potential terrorism.[25] Still, if challenged, the governor’s office could have argued that these politically controversial agreements were only nonbinding MOUs and not international agreements, suggesting that the agreements’ form is as important as their substance.

The criticism of these actions by the White House and those concerned with international commerce did not mention legal arguments but focused on the enormous disruption of cross-border trade that cost businesses hundreds of millions of dollars and further encouraged inflation.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Automatic-Wonder-299 California 1d ago

In short, there is ample precedent for U.K.-U.S. state nonbinding MOUs — whatever the terminology used — although all appear to have, for the most part, avoided the terms “trade” or “agreement” in the operative sections, which are discussed in Part III. Political or legal challenges are possible but, in my view, are unlikely.

Here’s a professor laying it out for you

→ More replies (0)