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

19.8k

u/wankbollox 1d 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. 

6.8k

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 1d 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.

2.8k

u/jesuisapprenant 1d 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. 

521

u/Nevermind04 Texas 1d ago

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

189

u/ameriCANCERvative 1d ago

Not just engaged in, led.

138

u/Nevermind04 Texas 1d 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.

11

u/ameriCANCERvative 1d 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 1d 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.

10

u/Datdarnpupper United Kingdom 1d ago

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

God, imagine

2

u/ameriCANCERvative 1d ago edited 1d ago

Wouldn’t it be nice if we were bolder?

Then we wouldn’t have to bite our tongues

And wouldn’t it be nice to hold them guilty

In the kind of world where justice runs?

You know it’s gonna make it that much better

When we can say they’re charged and under oath

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could wake up

In the morning when the day is new

And after watching trials on every channel

Feel proud of what our country chose to do?

——

Thanks chat gpt for helping me write a parody song about holding our leadership to account. It was genuinely a joint effort, I had to hold its hand.

-9

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Nevermind04 Texas 1d ago

Please, enlighten us as to why you believe the word "terrorist" doesn't apply to the group that unlawfully entered the capitol on January 6, 2021, shouting slogans and waving signs expressing their intentions to murder politicians, which eventually ended with 174 injured police officers, 5 dead police officers, and 4 dead participants.

terrorist
noun

a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

0

u/YouBlinkinSootLicker 18h ago

dont move goalposts please

1

u/Nevermind04 Texas 17h ago

So you aren't even going to try to defend your statement?

0

u/YouBlinkinSootLicker 11h ago

It stands alone. Truth shall set you free!

•

u/Nevermind04 Texas 6h ago

Yeah, that's what I thought. The worst thing about conservatives isn't that they're compulsive liars - it's that they're cowards too. All a person has to do is push back a little bit on some dumb shit they've said and they fold just like you.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/tdager 1d ago

Look, I am not fan of trump and am glad that those that hurt police officers were held accountable, but outside of a small group of people the vast majority that entered the Whitehouse were simply in "mob mode" and had not intention, nor capability, to overthrow the US government.

So no, they were not terrorists, and IMO we toss that word around way to easily (including the current administration).

5

u/Nevermind04 Texas 1d ago

Which part of that definition does not apply to the "mob" on January 6th?

1

u/GrunchJingo 22h ago

had not intention

Dog, they stormed the fucking capitol, rooted through politician's desks, and were on a hunt to murder those politicians. What could their intention have possibly been other than to overthrow the US government?

the vast majority that entered the Whitehouse were simply in "mob mode"

They were in a mob to overthrow the government and install Trump as dictator. It doesn't matter that that's not how any of this works. That was their intention, that's why they were there, that's why they stormed the capitol.

Like, listen, I don't even think the word terrorist should exist. I think it's used to deprive people of human rights and make people ignore any crimes against humanity the state commits against them.

But given every single piece of evidence, how can you possibly claim that the J6 insurrectionists did not aim to overthrow the government?

2

u/Prudent-Air1922 1d ago

It's actually a fact, but I know those don't matter to people like you.

1

u/YouBlinkinSootLicker 18h ago

I saw little old ladies waving tiny flags, it was amazing

1

u/Prudent-Air1922 9h ago

Those little old ladies did go to jail/prison. Anyone actually just hanging out and doing a real protest were fine. It was the ones who violently broke in and forced the certification of the election to be halted. Police were attacked, windows were broken, and they forced entry (amount a lot of other things).

If you don't want to watch the videos, that's on you. But based on your "little old lady" comment I'm going to assume you're just a shill or acting in bad faith here.

•

u/YouBlinkinSootLicker 3h ago

I watched it all. It was a great day, exposed many weaknesses if you knew where to look.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/redditlvlanalysis 1d ago

Naming terrorist insurrectionists who wanted to end the grand experiment as patriots is wildly hilarious

1

u/YouBlinkinSootLicker 18h ago

its all about framing, you know this

•

u/redditlvlanalysis 2h ago

No it's not. They are terrorists who tried to overturn the peaceful transfer of power and should be rotting in jail.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/mrpeabody208 Texas 1d 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.

2

u/ameriCANCERvative 1d ago

Fine.

I admit defeat in this battle of pedantry. “Incited” is definitely the most appropriate word to be used, but… to be just a bit more pedantic, I think your use of the word “merely” undersells the significance. “Incited” is on the same level as “led.” It’s actually more despicable, because as you say he took the coward’s way out.

We’d likely be a lot better off if he were on camera smearing his feces on the walls of the capitol instead of his degenerate mob, if he were the one packing the zip cuffs, etc.

1

u/mrpeabody208 Texas 1d ago

I was shitting on him for being a cowardly stochastic terrorist.

1

u/ameriCANCERvative 1d ago

Yeah me too. It’s even more shitty than him actually leading it. Little bitch sitting behind a tv screen watching his mob, blasting out bullshit tweets. Buffalo hat guy is probably the closest to a “leader” they had.

2

u/Beldizar 1d ago

Before all the cases got thrown out, it sounded like he and those working for him actively bussed in certain individuals and connected them to people to give tours of the building so they would know where to go. So just giving the inciting speech wasn't all there was to it, at least from what I saw of the evidence presented before it was killed.

1

u/queerhistorynerd 1d ago

unfortunately 70% of voters decided rule of law wasnt important

28

u/greenearrow 1d 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).

8

u/PaulTheMerc 1d ago

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

13

u/Mavian23 1d 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.

13

u/greenearrow 1d 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.

4

u/PaulTheMerc 1d 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?"

2

u/Reedstilt Ohio 1d ago

Those for-profit prisons aren't going to fill themselves.

2

u/Mavian23 1d ago

Because part of the War on Drugs was convincing people that weed is terrible and worthy of going to prison for. Then those people raised their kids to think that. Combine that with all of the cultural elements that came out of the War on Drugs, like DARE, and you've got a recipe for good propaganda.

1

u/GrunchJingo 21h ago

Things get instilled in the American psyche extremely quickly. Something can go from "atypical" or "unthinkable" to "how things have always been" in less than a decade.

Think about the 2nd amendment. When Reagan banned open carry to limit the ability of black activist groups to oversee police activity in their neighborhoods, the NRA was on his side. Legal scholars were on his side. Nearly every single article written about the 2nd amendment treated it as a right pertaining to state militias. Basically no one talked about an individual's right to have a gun. So when state militias weren't a thing, it stopped being a relevant part of the bill of rights.

In 2008 suddenly the 2nd amendment became about an individual's right to own a gun and everyone acted like it had always been that way. Now the majority of legal articles written about the 2nd amendment treat it as an individual right.

In 2000 it would be unthinkable that we would accept the US government spying on us. That's East Berlin shit. 9/11 happens and then people start saying "Well I've got nothing to hide." and acting like they were always ok with having their 4th amendment rights flagrantly violated.

So yeah, the war on drugs starts and it never ends and people think it's normal for the government to treat weed as a felony.

0

u/fdar 1d ago

Enforcement if sporadic enough that most people don't think they'll get in trouble and evade prison if they do. Obviously it doesn't work that way for some people, but for example "legal" states have clearly labeled dispensaries and those aren't really raided much even if it's still federally illegal.

6

u/Main_Tomatillo_8960 1d 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.

7

u/ThatsGenocide 1d ago

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

0

u/Main_Tomatillo_8960 1d ago

That’s what you think happened to Trump? He was targeted as a political opponent even though it was proven in court that he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of?

3

u/Impastato 1d ago

They never said they thought that’s what happened to Trump. But that is the justification for why felons are allowed to run for office.

1

u/ThatsGenocide 1d ago

No. That's not even close to what I said.

0

u/forever4never69420 1d ago

The crime of inflating the square footage of his condo?! My God....

1

u/Main_Tomatillo_8960 1d ago

How about the crime of raping a 13 year old child? Is that cool man?

1

u/forever4never69420 1d ago

Making shit up or was there a court case I missed??

→ More replies (0)

2

u/blah938 1d ago edited 1d ago

He hasn't been convicted of that insurrection is the thing. So until that happens, he can still hold office.

Edit: Criminal Conviction.

3

u/ViewBeneficial608 1d ago

He was actually found guilty of insurrection multiple times in court and by election officials, including the Colorado Supreme Court and by Republican appointed judges. In fact, every single time the merits of the case were looked at, Trump has been found to have engaged in insurrection.

The Supreme Court did not look at the question of whether Trump engaged in insurrection. The only reason they overturned the Colorado Supreme Courts decision was because they said Congress are the ones who have the power to determine it. Congress never held a trial.

2

u/Nevermind04 Texas 1d ago

Where does the 14th amendment mention conviction?

1

u/the_wyandotte 1d ago

You led an insurrection.

Source: me. But since it doesn't mention conviction, maybe my word is good enough....

The problem is, at the time it was incredibly obvious who was part of the Confederacy. There were army records, payments, votes for office, etc. Johnson also gave pardons to almost everyone involved, so they wouldn't have been convicted. And a later act in 1872 did away with even more.

I think it's incredibly obvious now that Trump led an insurrection Jan 6th, but the ball was dropped by not charging him with that in time. Justice delayed is justice denied, and now the whole world is suffering for it. Also the massive cowardice of the GOP to not impeach because "oh he's going to be out of office anyway". And Pence for not invoking the 26th. And Americans at large for continuing to put up with Trumps bullshit.

1

u/Nevermind04 Texas 1d ago edited 21h ago

Luckily, you aren't a state election board so that accusation has no merit. State election boards in Colorado, Illinois, and Maine met and ruled that Trump was legally disqualified from appearing on ballots. Their reasoning was that listing a candidate on a ballot who can't even hold the office he is running for is confusing enough to qualify as voter deception. 7 other states had challenges pending. The SCOTUS defied the constitution and 155 years of precedent with their blatantly political ruling.

963

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 1d 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.

297

u/UpperApe 1d 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.

93

u/rataculera 1d 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

21

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 1d ago

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

21

u/sn34kypete 1d 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 1d 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 1d 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

1

u/ostligelaonomaden 18h ago

What's their skin color? There's your answer

→ More replies (0)

3

u/QueenCity_Dukes 23h ago

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

1

u/Sunbunny94 1d ago

Sounds like the typical rude American traveler.

6

u/daaave33 Virginia 1d ago

Can we come too?

1

u/little__wisp I voted 11h ago

We would be better off forming our own bloc with Maryland and Delaware. California wouldn't be able to enforce borders on the other side of the continent.

22

u/glenn_ganges 1d 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.

32

u/Emilia_Violet 1d 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.

13

u/Ptricky17 1d 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?

14

u/Dogllissikay 1d ago

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

3

u/Catgeek08 1d ago

As a person that lives in Boise, one of the many reasons I want to move is this. I don’t want to be trapped here when Oregon is tired of Idaho’s fuckups.

4

u/rgaya 1d ago

I'm sitting here in Miami thinking fuck that shit

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Syntaire 23h ago

It is what they want, yes. It will not go how they dream it will. Reality is not a fantasy novel or video game where you can just say "I claim this land in the name of Dipshittia" and suddenly become a fully functional city-state accepted and respected by the world at large.

Their entire fantasy plan is fundamentally flawed in just about every possible aspect. They will probably get as far as dismantling the US, but that's where they'll slam face first into reality.

3

u/Infinite-Speaker286 1d ago

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

3

u/BikingThroughCanada 1d ago

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

3

u/thequeenzenobia 1d 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

2

u/absentmindedjwc 1d ago

Cries in Illinois.

I would love it if we were to join the NCR, but there are too many dumb states between here and there. Maybe Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois can all just join Canada. (assuming they'll have us)

-4

u/AlarmingAffect0 1d ago

Pah, I suspect the Western Oregonians are just fine with all the racism at least.

5

u/coffeetime121 1d ago

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

4

u/neverwantit 1d ago

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

1

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 1d ago

I don't think cessation is likely, or even possible unless the US is in such chaos that there's no other option.

What were definitely going to see are states telling trump to go fuck himself and negotiating their own trade policy.

1

u/Silidistani 1d ago

This is also part of project 2025's plan create such divisive situations and disrupt the government so much that it ceases to function so badly that people protest and rebel in larger and larger numbers - thereby allowing the evil fascist ghouls who control Trump to get him to declare martial law, of which he will never let go until they finish reshaping our government into something unrecognizable.

3

u/UpperApe 23h ago

Right. In which case the two options are:

1) Sit back and let them reshape America into what they want.

2) Fight back and let them reshape American into what they want.

One of those has a chance at stopping the system through disruption and forcing courts to individually battle for each bill and change.

The other is just sitting around and waiting for everything to get worse.

0

u/Rdhilde18 1d ago

dont all 50 states need to agree to allow a state to secede

10

u/Andysue28 1d ago

Just as the founding fathers intended… ugh

4

u/ameriCANCERvative 1d ago

You got me there before the colon.

4

u/DimbyTime 1d ago

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

2

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 1d ago

Praise 'Murican Jeezus!

2

u/DimbyTime 1d ago

Blonde haired, blue eyed, white American jeezus 🇺🇸🦅

2

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 1d ago

I was literally taught as a kid that Jesus was white because brown people are cursed. They won't admit to the overt racism now, but there is a reason so many christian nationalists freaked out over Obama, and it wasn't because of his Tan Suit.

1

u/DimbyTime 1d ago

Omg are you Mormon? I only know about that from South Park but that’s insane 🤣

(And then Book of Mormon musical which is fantastic)

2

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 1d ago

Was. But "curse of Cain" was used to justify slavery before Joseph Smith co-opted it as a central theme of the Book of Mormon. If you saw that South Park episode ("dum dum dum dum dum") then you know more of the truth about Mormonism that I did for the first few decades of my life.

1

u/DimbyTime 1d ago

Wow that’s crazy. Proud of you for escaping the cult 🫡

→ More replies (0)

3

u/AtOurGates Idaho 1d 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.

2

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 1d ago

I give it 6 months tops before they start ruling parts of the US Constitution "unconstitutional".

And before the end there will absolutely be a horribly drawn out SCOTUS case about whether trump can serve a 3rd term. And it's not unlikely that they'll delay starting it until Oct 2028 and then say it's too late to make a decision, so trump is allowed to run.

1

u/TinFoilBeanieTech 1d ago

I dunno, a lot of the right wing secretly hate Trump but are afraid to stand up to him. Frankly I think they are relieved there will be no 3rd term. Plus, isn't Trump older than Biden when he took office? Trump never was the sharpest Cheeto in the bag, and has been showing signs of steady decline. I wasn't too happy about geriatric Biden, but I can only imagine how bad Trump is going to be in 3.5 years. I wish him many Hamberders before then.

8

u/IJustLoggedInToSay- Illinois 1d ago edited 1d 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 1d 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 1d 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 1d 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.

7

u/apatheticsahm 1d 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 1d 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.

2

u/iambecomesoil 1d ago

Maybe the constitution needed a little bit of rethinking

In the US, the Constitution is a holy document put together by a group of patron saints hovering 6 inches above the constitutional congress chamber floors draped in the glory of God.

To suggest that anything was missed, or anything has materially changed in the intervening CENTURIES, is tantamount of treason and you're lucky we don't give you the Electric Chair.

2

u/mouse_8b 1d ago

Same for the Bible

3

u/LuxNocte 1d ago

The Constitution is from the Bible, silly.

3

u/mouse_8b 1d ago

It makes so much sense! Thank you!

2

u/Atheist-Gods 1d ago

The constitutional powers of the executive branch are the smallest of the 3 branches. The problem is that the legislature has continually given the executive branch their power and now a large part of the government is willing to just completely ignore all laws to hand Trump more power.

4

u/InsuranceToTheRescue I voted 1d 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 1d ago

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

3

u/dasunt 1d 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.

2

u/Sparticuse 1d ago

Technically, he can under a declared emergency, which is why he declared an emergency under the guise of a fentanyl epidemic, which he then expanded to just let him do whatever he wants. He did the same thing in his first term to get the wall funding they wouldn't write into the budget.

Congress could 100% stop him by ending the emergency and reclaiming their power, or at the very least limiting the scope of his actions to directly dealing with the emergency that he said he's dealing with, but giving their responsibility to the executive was always their goal.

2

u/PeopleCallMeSimon 1d ago

Theoretically the executive holds any power that congress does not take away from him.

6

u/SpecialOpsCynic 1d ago

Not a Trump fan, but felons can run for President, and tariffs are executive branch discretion.  It's important to remain focused on the real abuses as mistaking facts creates justifiable debate.

The guy is bad enough without making shit up

10

u/Bonesnapcall 1d ago

They are only Executive Branch discretion because congress said "you can do this in an emergency." That was supposed to mean something.

8

u/itsZizix 1d ago

Tariff powers are granted to the legislative branch under the constitution - simply reading the constitution would confirm as much. Congress has delegated emergency tariff powers to the executive branch under several laws, the constitutionality of which which really should be debated as changing/adding tariffs to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule should be considered a legislative act and not something able to be delegated to another branch.

2

u/alienbringer 1d ago

Felons can run for office, they shouldn’t, but nothing in the constitution says they can’t.

Insurrectionists can’t run for office though without congress’s approval. What the Supreme Court said about the 14th is that Congress has to disapprove it not approve it… which is literally counter the words in the text.

14th amendment part relevant:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

2

u/fiction8 1d ago

SCOTUS said that there needed to be a law defining what acts would count as insurrection/rebellion/aid&comfort in order for the courts to categorize someone's actions as one of those terms.

1

u/caylem00 23h ago

There's 2 reasons: 

  1. A remnant of post civil war where the rebels couldn't hold office as they had committed treason technically. 

Most importantly though:

  1. To stop politicians having their opponents arrested and charged on bogus charges to prevent them running for/staying in office.

1

u/TomSelleckPI 1d ago

Maine would like a word with courts.

1

u/AidenStoat Arizona 1d ago

Technically felons can run for office, the rest is unconstitutional though.

1

u/ProbShouldntSayThat 1d ago

There's nothing preventing felons from holding office. Other than that, your comment is true

1

u/alabasterskim 1d ago

Felons very much can run for office. However, insurrectionists can't.

1

u/Prometherion666 1d ago

Felons can’t run for office?

1

u/Kinky-BA-Greek 1d ago

You’re correct save for the Tarriff power as Congress gave the President some power to enact Tariffs. Very stupid but nonetheless what Congress did. So the President has the power to impose tariffs.

1

u/Jericho5589 1d ago

Tariff power has belonged to the executive branch since the 30's when congress granted it to FDR. It really should have been taken away after WW2 ended, but I guess they forgot.

1

u/scriptmonkey420 New York 1d ago

Yet, who is there to stop it?

That makes it defacto legal when no one is willing to stand up and physically stop it. Until then we are so fucked.

1

u/hypercosm_dot_net 1d ago

I had no idea the tariffs were illegal.

You're right though.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/04/03/why-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-are-illegal/

Trump feels he can do anything he wants, because he knows the Republican congress under Johnson isn't going to do a damn thing to stop him.

1

u/VegtableCulinaryTerm 1d ago

Felons CAN and SHOULD be able to run for office. 

If they couldn't, all you'd need to do is charge your political opponents with a felony to keep them out of office forever.

Also, imagine you go to prison for something like weed, and then one day want to make it legal. It's honestly a travesty that felons can't vote. Non violent non sex crimes shouldn't even be felonies, imo.

1

u/LuxNocte 1d ago

Congress ceded the power to create tariffs to the President. With everything illegal going on, you managed to name two things which are actually constitutional.

(Sane people would say this isn't an emergency, so Trump shouldn't be able to levy tariffs. But without a definition of "Emergency" in the law, this would be quite difficult to argue.)

1

u/merikariu Texas 1d ago

Also, Congress has the power to enact tariffs but the Donald is claiming emergency powers on a totally bogus justification. It may not survive a legal challenge either in the USA or in the WTO.

1

u/nachobrainwaves 1d ago

Where does it say felons cannot run for office?

1

u/Seamilk90210 1d ago

felons cannot run for office

The only requirements for president are that you're a natural-born citizen, over 35, and have lived in the US for more than 14 years. He could have probably run from jail (and won) and it would have worked just the same.

Some states, though, prevent felons from running for office.

1

u/Anxious_Cheetah5589 1d ago

It's high time that SCOTUS examines the constitutionality of Trump's tariffs. He's clearly abusing the national emergency act. And besides, the whole idea that Congress can offload its constitutional duties is highly doubtful.

1

u/Statue_left New York 1d ago

Felons can absolutely run for office. Do you people just make shit up? Eugene Debs ran from his fucking cell and got 3.5%

1

u/atriaventrica 1d ago

Felons absolutely can run for office. Hell, PRISONERS can run for office. Otherwise you could just railroad political dissidents and make them ineligible.

1

u/feargluten 1d ago

Ok. Good luck with that… gotta have some spine to vote against TFG and his masters. GOP ain’t it

1

u/tamman2000 Maine 1d ago

Felons can run for office, and for very good reason. If felons were barred from office, then a corrupt administration could cook up felonies for the leadership of the opposition and bar them from running for office.

Where I live two of the most popular things (among both democrats and republicans) are weed and guns. If you buy a gun as a weed smoker you have to violate the same law Hunter Biden violated. Elon violated it, he owns guns and uses schedule 1 drugs... Hunter was convicted only because of who his dad was. And that was with a democrat at in the WH. Think of how easy it would be for Trump to gin up phoney charges for AOC, Bernie, Buttigieg, Newson, et al. He just needs a corrupt federal prosecutor (no problem here) and a few corrupt judges (again, he has that).

You're correct about everything else.

1

u/notworldauthor 1d ago

Long before the US was even founded the English had a Civil War precisely over the principle that only the legislature had the taxing power

Although much more ink has been spilled over the economic bomb aspect of this, the fact that the prez has unilaterally imposed a massive tax hike is very important

1

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 1d ago

Felons can definitely run for office federally and in most states.

1

u/pleasedothenerdful 1d ago

Insurrectionists cannot hold federal office, either.

0

u/Nice-River-5322 1d ago

Felons can't vote, they can run for office.