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

12

u/DiabolicallyRandom 1d ago

It cannot apply to some issues and not others It can and has and does. I agree that "not via politics of the moment" but the constitution is clear on a great many things. Some things are reserved for the fed.

Anything NOT reserved for the fed is for the state.

All interpretations to date of the constitution stipulate international trade is regulated by the fed.

This was very intentional and explicit by the framers.

1

u/sniper1rfa 1d ago

His statement was philosophical in nature, not legal, so the distinction is irrelevant.

2

u/jeebus87 1d ago

It's argumentative in nature, but certainly rooted in the law. 😊

-2

u/DiabolicallyRandom 1d ago

It's not rooted in law at all lmao. It's rooted in emotion.

I agree with you on the philosophical ideals, but this is against the law... period.

The federal government is permitted to enforce that law too. With force. (see the 1860s).

4

u/jeebus87 1d ago

That is a fair and historically grounded point. The federal government does have the constitutional authority, and indeed the legal precedent, to enforce its laws even in the face of state opposition. The Civil War, Reconstruction, desegregation, and even recent federal interventions all serve as reminders that states pushing against federal supremacy in areas clearly reserved for the federal government will not prevail when it comes to the rule of law.

But here is where we should be careful. While the legal boundaries are firm, the discussion around them is not merely emotional, it is political, economic, and civic. The tension is not about whether California can override federal trade policy, it cannot, but whether the federal government, having created harm through lawful policy, is willing to allow a state to advocate for mitigation, carve out exemptions, or seek flexibility without being told to sit down and accept the consequences.

It is not about nullification. It is about negotiation. About diplomacy within the union. California is not threatening secession or openly defying federal law, it is lobbying, coordinating, and attempting to act in defense of its people. That is not illegal. That is governance.

So while I agree with you that the constitutional lines are clear, I would argue that this is not a question of legality versus emotion. It is a question of whether a federal government that claims to support local control in some spheres is willing to tolerate it when the politics are reversed. If not, then yes, it is legal, but also politically hypocritical. And in a functioning republic, hypocrisy matters.

1

u/DiabolicallyRandom 1d ago

You're speaking as if we still exist with rational elected leadership.

You seem to maintain the belief that somehow the maga GOP will somehow be forced to take California's "negotiation" seriously from a political, economic, or civic perspective.

That belief is based in emotion, not rationality.

Trump has not been told no even once.

If he wants to use the military to blockade California, he will.

1

u/jeebus87 1d ago

That is a sobering assessment, and I do not think it is entirely unfounded. We are, undeniably, in a moment where institutional norms are being tested, stretched, and in some cases discarded altogether. The assumption that rational actors will behave with respect for precedent, process, or principle has, frankly, taken a beating in recent years. I do not disagree that betting on a good-faith response from an increasingly authoritarian faction is, at best, optimistic.

However, I would still argue that even in the face of irrational or authoritarian leadership, the act of negotiation, of asserting state interests, of using legal, political, and diplomatic tools, is not naive. It is necessary. California cannot afford to disengage from the process simply because the other side may not play fair. Refusing to show up at the table does not protect anyone, it cedes the entire field.

You are right. Trump has not been told no by many people who mattered at key moments. But that is not a reason to stop resisting or to stop articulating a coherent state-centered argument. It is the reason to sharpen it, to codify it, to challenge any overreach not just in the streets, but in the courts, in the legislature, and yes, in the eyes of the public who will judge these acts in the long arc of history.

If we abandon the tools of law and reason simply because the other side might ignore them, we concede the terrain of legitimacy. Once that is gone, all we are left with is force. That is not a world we should accept as inevitable, not without a fight, and not without saying plainly that it was wrong.