LawTalkingGuy

quote:

---

So, since Trump can levy tariffs (taxes to you) and taxes can be backdated, then where is the problem?

---

I missed this and did not include it with my earlier response.

So,yes, SOME taxes can be backdated, but there are limits. Backdating Incime taxes is usually limited to the calendar year, and other taxes are limited to the day the legislation was introduced. I'm not sure if tariffs can ever be backdated.

However, the problem with the tariffs Trump imposed under section 122 is they have a time limit of 150 days. If you backdate them, they will expire.

Also, the rates of these new tariffs are different from the IEEPA tariffs, so the US still might owe refunds.

quote:

---

I believe the issue wasn’t the illegality of the tariff as much as the rationale for charging the tariffs.

---

Way too simplistic a way to look at this.

Congress has indeed given POTUS the power to impose some tariffs under specific rules. There are various statutes giving POTUS tariff power, but each statute comes with its own set of rules.

For the first set of tariffs, Trump did not follow those rules, so the tariffs he imposed were illegal and ceased to be collected as of this morning.

Remember the "Liberation Day" tariffs, when Trump announced a variety of illogical and high tariffs on every nation in the world, and the markets tanked as a reaction, so Trump paused the tariffs to let everyone take a beat? That was all way beyond his legal authority, as well as the tariff rates he ultimately landed on.

Now, he didnt just change his rationale. He has enacted new tariffs, effective as of this morning, purporting to exercise his limited authority under section 122 of the Trade Act. The highest rate he can impose under that statute is 15%, and he has maxed that out except for the countries he already had an executive deal with, including Canada and Mexico. But these are completely new tariffs.

The thing about these new tariffs are, 1) They are only valid for 150 days unless approved by Congress, and 2) they are also probably illegal because of the way he is applying them, and also not applying them.

His next move will be tariffs under section 301, which gives him really broad authority, but only after the US Trade Representative provides a detailed report showing unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory trade practices by each targeted foreign country. I have no doubt Trump will receive the reports he needs, but until those investigations are completed he cannot use section 301.

This isnt just a matter of saying "oh, wait, I meant to use this other statute". There are conditions to be met and rules to follow.

So, yes, the tariffs enacted under the IEEPA were illegal, and are no longer in effect.

quote:

---

but a faction of the Court is hyper-partisan and only shows up when their team leader occupies the White House.

---

Thats not true at all. Some Justices almost never attend (Alito, Thomas, Jackson), some Justices almost always attend (Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Kagan) while Gorsuch and Barrett have so far attended sporadically. There doesn't appear to be a pattern based on the party of the POTUS.

quote:

---

Thomas, Cavanaugh and Alito may show

---

Alito has not attended a SOTU since 2010. Thomas hasn't been since 2006, saying the addresses are very uncomfortable to attend. But, yeah, maybe they attend this year so that Trump can say nice things about them.

Roberts will almost certainly attend, even though he says its just a political pep rally.

The three Democrats will probably attend or boycott based on what the Democrats in congress decide makes the best statement.

Trump just called Barrett and Gorsuch fools and lapdogs and an embarrassment to their families. That would make me want to attend, but maybe they will stay home.

So, you're saying we should be in favor of our government providing a free digital ID system linked to the World Bank and the UN?

UM...no, thank you.

There really is nothing inherently racist or biased in requiring photo IDs to vote. That is, until you start making it harder for certain groups to obtain those IDs.

Take Alabama (please). They implemented a new voter ID law, then they started closing DMV offices in the poorest counties. So, people with no money have to find a way to travel one or two counties over just to get or renew their ID. If they cant accomplish that, then they cant vote.

Seems like this battle was already fought over 60 years ago.

quote:

---

GA Code § 21-2-386 A-1-c

---

That statute is for absentee votes. The recent admission from Fulton County relates to early in person voting, so that statute clearly does not apply.

I realize there are also issues with mail in ballots, but try to keep the issues straight.

quote:

---

Right. It’s just a “clerical error”

---

Call it whatever you want. The error here involved the tabulation of the ballots, not the ballots themselves.

This current story is about early, in person voting. No one is claiming the votes themselves were improper. The tabulation of the votes were not properly authenticated.

Fortunately, in Georgia, the electronic voting machines produce a paper record that the voter double checks before putting that record in a secure box. Multiple hand recounts of the paper records have confirmed the Fulton County vote tabulation was accurate.

Potentially fraudulent mail in votes or whatever are not part of this current story.

No laws were broken, but the poll workers failed to follow proper procedure, and Fulton County is likely to face substantial fines.

But this particular story is not the election fraud bombshell people are hoping for.

(No Message)

quote:

---

They’ve got a word for someone seizing power without an election and that word is not President

---

I was talking about succession. So, if a two term President was serving as, say, Speaker of the House, and some series of events caused the Presidency and Vice Presidency to be vacant, then the 22nd Amendment would not prevent the Speaker from taking the seat.

I wasn't advocating for a two term President to just declare an emergency or anything like that.

quote:

---

"By two terms, does the 22nd mean limiting to two total terms, or limiting to two consecutive terms?"

---

You should probably read the 22nd Amenment before trying to comment on it. It doesn't say anything about serving "two terms".

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice"

The Amendment intentionally leaves room for a two term President to serve again in an emergency situation, they just can't be elected again.

However, there is no ambiguity regarding consecutive terms or whatever. One cannot be elected more than twice.