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

70

u/Bruce-7891 1d ago

I'd love this but it sounds illegal as F. A tariff is a tax and a state can't independently decide it's not going to participate in federal taxes.

7

u/i_thrive_on_apathy New York 1d ago

They completely disregard any sense of legality with the stuff they're doing, so who cares about it. The American legal system is a joke.

0

u/Bruce-7891 1d ago

Why do people keep trying this argument? They broke the law so why don't we? Go right ahead, do it. I hope you also have a corrupt congress, federal judges backing you and personally know the leadership of the DOJ and FBI.

4

u/Zakaru99 1d ago

Is it really breaking the law to ignore a brand new unconstitutional law?

The president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose a new tax without congress.

-2

u/MIT_Engineer 1d ago

If the states ignore this law, then that means the law comes into effect.

Tariffs aren't administered by the states, they're administered by the federal government. The states are just bystanders.

If the states tried to interfere with the collection of tariffs, THAT would be breaking the law, and it wouldn't have the desired effect: all it would mean is imports to their state would shut down, not that they'd come in tariff-free.

0

u/Zakaru99 1d ago

Since you apparently didn't read it, I'll repeat:

The president doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose a new tax without congress.

I understand that tariffs (a tax) are administered by the federal government. That doesn't mean the president can impose tariffs unilaterally. Congress is part of the federal government. Congress is required to impose a new tax, by the constitution. Trump is trying to impose a new tax unilaterally, which is unconstitutional, AKA breaking the law.

0

u/Neve4ever 18h ago

Congress has given the power to impose tariffs to the president.

-2

u/MIT_Engineer 1d ago

Since you apparently didn't read it, I'll repeat:

I did read it, you just didn't understand my response.

I understand that tariffs (a tax) are administered by the federal government.

Right, so if the states "ignore" the law, then the federal government gets its way.

That doesn't mean the president can impose tariffs unilaterally.

Right, but it means that you would need to challenge him in court. Just saying, "We're not gonna follow that law" doesn't work here.

Congress is part of the federal government.

And California's state government is not.

Congress is required to impose a new tax, by the constitution.

So if you ignore him when he does so, you're letting him do something unconstitutional.

Trump is trying to impose a new tax unilaterally, which is unconstitutional, AKA breaking the law.

And you're literally telling us to "ignore" this.

Did you need me to repeat what you said? Maybe you didn't read it.

2

u/Zakaru99 1d ago edited 1d ago

Right, you're saying we all have to follow the "law" that isn't a law and didn't go through the proper channels to be law.

We're not ignoring a law. It's not a law. There are steps you have to go through to make something law, that haven't happened here. What has happened is a president attempting to wield power he doesn't have, and you're saying we have to abide by the power he doesn't have.

EOs don't create law.

0

u/MIT_Engineer 1d ago edited 1d ago

Right, you're saying we all have to follow the "law" that isn't a law and didn't go through the proper channels to be law.

No, what I've repeatedly said is the law isn't even something you "follow" in this case. It's something that happens with you as a bystander in this instance. If as a bystander you ignore it, then the law doesn't mind. It doesn't need your participation.

We're not ignoring a law.

To quote you:

Is it really breaking the law to ignore a brand new unconstitutional law?

See where there might be some confusion as to whatever it is you're trying to say?

It's not a law.

OK, sure, whatever you say. Let's call it a 'government action.' But whatever it is, a state like California is a bystander to it.

There are steps you have to go through to make something law, that haven't happened here.

That's nice, and something you can bring up in court, but it doesn't expand California's options here any.

What has happened is a president attempting to wield power he doesn't have

And you can take that up with the courts.

and you're saying we have to abide by the power he doesn't have.

The legal power you can contest in courts. The actual power is hard to get around, and he definitely has it. They collect the tariffs directly, they don't need compliance from the California state government.

EOs don't create law.

Neither does Newsom. So not only does he lack the actual power to stop the collection of federal tariffs, he lacks the legal authority as well. 0 for 2.

EDIT: He blocked me, so here's the response.

You say that Newsom lacks the power and legal authority to stop the collection of these tariffs, while glossing over that Trump lacks the power and legal authority to start the collection of these tariffs.

No, I didn't gloss over this at all. What I did was explain in detail how he absolutely has the power, and if you want to contest the legal authority you'd need to do so in a court of law. The idea that you're going to stop the collection of tariffs by federal agents is a non-starter on practical grounds.

You are literally saying that if Trump does anything, even if he didn't go through any of the proper channels to do it, everyone has to act like he did go through all the proper channels.

I said nothing at all like this, it's entirely a figment of your overactive imagination.

The courts will be involved. That doesn't mean everyone going to act like Trump actually had the authority to implement these tariffs until the slow court process occurs.

Right, but they ARE going to have to accept that he has the power to do so, despite your raving insistence that he somehow doesn't.

You keep conflating legal authority with the ability to exercise power, and it's completely disabled your ability to think or even comprehend what you are being told.

1

u/Zakaru99 1d ago edited 1d ago

You're right that I shouldn't have said we were ignoring an unconstitutional law, because it's not a law. It's the president trying to wield power that he doesn't have.

You say that Newsom lacks the power and legal authority to stop the collection of these tariffs, while glossing over that Trump lacks the power and legal authority to start the collection of these tariffs.

You are literally saying that if Trump does anything, even if he didn't go through any of the proper channels to do it, everyone has to act like he did go through all the proper channels. That Trump gets to unconstitutionally wield power that he doesn't have, and everyone has to let him, until the slow court process weighs in.

The courts will be involved. That doesn't mean everyone going to act like Trump actually had the authority to implement these tariffs until the slow court process occurs.