California to Negotiate Trade With Other Countries to Bypass Trump Tariffs

[u/sweatycat]

https://www.newsweek.com/california-newsom-trade-trump-tariffs-2055414

[u/jeebus87]

What we are witnessing is a striking contradiction in American governance. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the message was clear: let the states decide. The federal government, through the Court’s ruling, signaled that the people of each state should determine their own course on some of the most consequential issues of our time. That was the rationale, state autonomy, local control, democratic self-determination.

Now, California seeks to do just that. Faced with sweeping tariffs that threaten the livelihood of its farmers and manufacturers, the state is exploring ways to shield its economy. But if the federal government refuses to allow it, or worse, actively blocks those efforts, then we are left with a troubling inconsistency.

The principle of states' rights cannot be a one-way street. It cannot apply to some issues and not others, depending on the politics of the moment. If states are trusted to regulate matters of life and liberty, they ought to be trusted to protect their workers and industries. To deny that now is not only inconsistent, it is hypocritical.

[u/DiabolicallyRandom → u/jeebus87]

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.

[u/jeebus87 → u/DiabolicallyRandom]

You are absolutely correct that the Constitution draws clear lines, international trade, foreign affairs, the regulation of commerce with foreign nations, these powers are unmistakably delegated to the federal government under Article I, Section 8. And yes, the framers were deliberate in that design, not only to present a unified front in international dealings but also to prevent economic fragmentation among the states.

But here is where the tension lies. While the authority to regulate international trade rests squarely with the federal government, the consequences of those regulations fall unevenly across the states. When a sweeping federal tariff policy disproportionately harms certain states, say, California’s agricultural or tech sectors, it is not unreasonable for those states to attempt to shield their residents from the economic fallout, even if their tools are limited.

You are also right that some issues must be federal. But when federal action produces harm, and state-level mitigation is met with resistance, it strains the credibility of appeals to federalism in other contexts. The hypocrisy arises not from a failure to understand constitutional boundaries, but from watching those boundaries expand and contract based on political expediency.

So yes, the framers gave international trade to the federal government. But the federal government must wield that authority with a sense of shared national stewardship, not as a blunt instrument that ignores the real, localized damage it inflicts. Otherwise, the states will understandably fight for breathing room, even if the Constitution gives them precious little of it. And that, too, is part of the ongoing American story.

[u/penguin_hugger100 → u/jeebus87]

Yeah you're just talking to talk at this point. What California is proposing is illegal. I don't like when politicians and government bodies think they are above the rule of law, and that extends to Democrats. I think perhaps YOU are the hypocrite for complaining about illegal acts by Trump's government yet supporting illegal acts from neoliberal governments.

[u/ThinkyRetroLad → u/penguin_hugger100]

Perhaps 'the other side' ignoring the courts and our rule of law is the only way to illustrate the problems with going down this path, when semiotics and language becomes flexible and anything can be argued, nothing has meaning. We have our legal system for a reason. Ignoring it may illustrate why. We've crossed into uncharted territory, regardless of what people want to admit.