Quote:[/url]
Nick Sortor


@nicksortor


 MAJOR BREAKING: The US Supreme Court has just STRUCK DOWN President Trump’s tariff authority,

6-3

SCOTUS just WRECKED our country.

One of the biggest economic comebacks in world history just got thrown in the incinerator.

What a shame.

Quote:
Townhall.com
@townhallcom
[url=https://x.com/townhallcom]
JONATHAN TURLEY: "There's a lot of runway still for the administration..."

"The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!"

(02-20-2026, 03:43 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Sounds like we are getting Congress involved, which, depending on who owns them, renegotiation could be quick or take years.

Id imagine there is Chinese money pushing for negotiations. 

Quote:[/url]
Nick Sortor


@nicksortor


 MAJOR BREAKING: The US Supreme Court has just STRUCK DOWN President Trump’s tariff authority,

6-3

SCOTUS just WRECKED our country.

One of the biggest economic comebacks in world history just got thrown in the incinerator.

What a shame.

---

I could see Canada pushing for and getting renegotiations....

Hopefully we still deal with the EU one country at a time 

Quote:
Townhall.com
@townhallcom
[url=https://x.com/townhallcom]
JONATHAN TURLEY: "There's a lot of runway still for the administration..."

"The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!"

• The post responds to a query about specific tariffs affected by a Supreme Court ruling, explaining that only those imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were invalidated, while others under standard trade laws persist.
  
• Issued on February 20, 2026, the SCOTUS decision limits President Trump's use of emergency powers for broad tariffs on imports, but spares measures like steel and aluminum duties enacted via Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
  
• This ruling narrows executive trade authority without dismantling Trump's overall protectionist framework, as non-emergency tariffs continue to influence U.S. imports from major partners like China and the EU.
  

Quote:Conversation

[/url]Election Wizard
@ElectionWiz

Subscribe


SCOTUS only considered tariffs issued under the IEEPA & struck those down.

President Trump primarily relied on IEEPA for sanctions & emergency-based restrictions. Numerous major tariffs were imposed under standard trade statutes, not emergency powers, so many remain in effect.
Quote




Chris Kurtz

@ckurtzopks81
·
1h
Replying to @ElectionWiz
Some tarries, which ones exactly? Who and how do they decide?

(02-20-2026, 04:07 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote: Grab your popcorn .


Regarding making deals  one country at a time in EU ...i dont think it`s possible , under EU law.

• The post responds to a query about specific tariffs affected by a Supreme Court ruling, explaining that only those imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were invalidated, while others under standard trade laws persist.
  
• Issued on February 20, 2026, the SCOTUS decision limits President Trump's use of emergency powers for broad tariffs on imports, but spares measures like steel and aluminum duties enacted via Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.
  
• This ruling narrows executive trade authority without dismantling Trump's overall protectionist framework, as non-emergency tariffs continue to influence U.S. imports from major partners like China and the EU.
  

• This ruling narrows executive trade authority without dismantling Trump's overall protectionist framework, as non-emergency tariffs continue to influence U.S. imports from major partners like China and the EU.
  

(02-20-2026, 03:43 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Sounds like we are getting Congress involved, which, depending on who owns them, renegotiation could be quick or take years.

Id imagine there is Chinese money pushing for negotiations. 

Quote:[/url]
Nick Sortor


@nicksortor


 MAJOR BREAKING: The US Supreme Court has just STRUCK DOWN President Trump’s tariff authority,

6-3

SCOTUS just WRECKED our country.

One of the biggest economic comebacks in world history just got thrown in the incinerator.

What a shame.

---

I could see Canada pushing for and getting renegotiations....

Hopefully we still deal with the EU one country at a time 

Quote:
Townhall.com
@townhallcom
[url=https://x.com/townhallcom]
JONATHAN TURLEY: "There's a lot of runway still for the administration..."

"The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It CAN actually impose tariffs under other statutes!"

(02-20-2026, 09:47 PM)sahgwa Wrote: Most companies in Europe especially seem too stupid or uncaring to do their diligence with tariffs, so I have had to forego receiving some books and music from France and stuff because the vendors do not want to fill out the paperwork or do the basic simple arithmetic to pass on the tariff cost in the shipping . Its very frustrating. 
La Poste in FR said they ship to USA but these lazy ass companies are lying and say they don't lol.

So far no problem with books and stuff from Germany.
But if we can keep our advtantage but still streamline international trade I will be thankful.

(02-20-2026, 11:09 PM)ANNEE Wrote: Shouldn't "we" have started with Congress?

There is a specific structure in place -- for reasons.

Trump just ignores those procedure structures -- and dictates.

(02-21-2026, 01:34 AM)Minstrel Wrote: The Supremes just told The Presidency - "We're stronger than you."

Anyone like watching arm-wrestling matches?

The UnElecteds -vs- The Elected

Quote:These cases highlight how tariffs

—often intended for revenue, protectionism, or leverage—frequently escalated into major political flashpoints.

1. Tariff of 1828 ("Tariff of Abominations") and the Nullification Crisis (1832–1833, United States)
• High protective tariffs (up to 50% on imports) favored Northern manufacturers but devastated Southern agricultural exporters reliant on cheap foreign goods and British markets.
• South Carolina, led by Vice President John C. Calhoun, declared the tariffs unconstitutional and "null and void" via the Ordinance of Nullification, threatening secession.
• President Andrew Jackson responded with the Force Bill, authorizing military action, nearly leading to armed confrontation.
• Resolved via compromise (tariff reductions in 1833), but it foreshadowed sectional divides over states' rights, federal power, and slavery—setting precedents for later secessionist arguments.
2. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930, United States)
• Raised duties on over 20,000 imported goods amid the early Great Depression to protect U.S. industries.
• Triggered widespread international retaliation (e.g., from Canada, Europe), collapsing global trade by ~66% and worsening the Depression.
• Became a symbol of failed protectionism, straining diplomatic relations and contributing to economic nationalism that fed into pre-WWII tensions.
3. Corn Laws (1815–1846, United Kingdom)
• High tariffs on imported grain protected British landowners and farmers but raised food prices, causing hardship for urban workers and the poor.
• Sparked intense political battles between agricultural elites (protectionists) and industrial/urban interests (free traders).
• Led to riots, the formation of the Anti-Corn Law League, and eventual repeal in 1846 under Prime Minister Robert Peel—shifting Britain toward free trade but fracturing the Conservative Party.
4. Morrill Tariff (1861, United States)
• Sharply increased protective duties shortly before Southern secession, benefiting Northern industry.
• Southern states viewed it as further evidence of Northern economic dominance and favoritism.
• While not the primary cause of the Civil War (slavery was central), it intensified North-South economic grievances and was cited in some secession debates as an example of federal overreach.
5. Chicken War / Chicken Tax (1960s, United States vs. European Economic Community)
• U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on light trucks and other goods in retaliation for EEC restrictions on U.S. poultry exports.
• Escalated into a transatlantic trade dispute, affecting auto and agricultural sectors.
• Long-term legacy: The "Chicken Tax" on light trucks remains in place today, shaping the U.S. pickup truck market.
6. Banana Wars (1993–2009, United States vs. European Union)
• U.S. challenged EU preferences for Caribbean/African bananas over Latin American ones (favoring U.S. companies like Chiquita).
• Led to multiple WTO cases, retaliatory U.S. tariffs on European luxury goods (e.g., cashmere, cheese, handbags).
• Highlighted tensions over trade preferences, colonialism's legacy, and corporate influence in trade policy.
7. U.S.-Japan Trade Conflicts (1980s, including semiconductor and auto tariffs)
• U.S. imposed tariffs and quotas on Japanese cars, electronics, and semiconductors to counter perceived "unfair" practices.
• Sparked political friction, accusations of protectionism, and retaliatory threats.
• Contributed to broader U.S.-Japan economic rivalry during Japan's rise as an economic power.
These examples show tariffs often serve as proxies for deeper issues: regional economic rivalries, federal vs. state power, class interests, or geopolitical leverage. While some (like the Corn Laws repeal) led to liberalization, others (like Smoot-Hawley) amplified crises. In the U.S., tariffs repeatedly divided North vs. South or industry vs. agriculture, influencing party politics for over a century.

(02-21-2026, 03:09 PM)putnam6 Wrote:

(02-21-2026, 01:34 AM)Minstrel Wrote: The Supremes just told The Presidency - "We're stronger than you."

Anyone like watching arm-wrestling matches?

The UnElecteds -vs- The Elected

This happens from time to time



just shows our checks and balances are working... 

It will be interesting to see what actually happens to that 155 billion surplus...

Quote:These cases highlight how tariffs

—often intended for revenue, protectionism, or leverage—frequently escalated into major political flashpoints.

1. Tariff of 1828 ("Tariff of Abominations") and the Nullification Crisis (1832–1833, United States)
• High protective tariffs (up to 50% on imports) favored Northern manufacturers but devastated Southern agricultural exporters reliant on cheap foreign goods and British markets.
• South Carolina, led by Vice President John C. Calhoun, declared the tariffs unconstitutional and "null and void" via the Ordinance of Nullification, threatening secession.
• President Andrew Jackson responded with the Force Bill, authorizing military action, nearly leading to armed confrontation.
• Resolved via compromise (tariff reductions in 1833), but it foreshadowed sectional divides over states' rights, federal power, and slavery—setting precedents for later secessionist arguments.
2. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (1930, United States)
• Raised duties on over 20,000 imported goods amid the early Great Depression to protect U.S. industries.
• Triggered widespread international retaliation (e.g., from Canada, Europe), collapsing global trade by ~66% and worsening the Depression.
• Became a symbol of failed protectionism, straining diplomatic relations and contributing to economic nationalism that fed into pre-WWII tensions.
3. Corn Laws (1815–1846, United Kingdom)
• High tariffs on imported grain protected British landowners and farmers but raised food prices, causing hardship for urban workers and the poor.
• Sparked intense political battles between agricultural elites (protectionists) and industrial/urban interests (free traders).
• Led to riots, the formation of the Anti-Corn Law League, and eventual repeal in 1846 under Prime Minister Robert Peel—shifting Britain toward free trade but fracturing the Conservative Party.
4. Morrill Tariff (1861, United States)
• Sharply increased protective duties shortly before Southern secession, benefiting Northern industry.
• Southern states viewed it as further evidence of Northern economic dominance and favoritism.
• While not the primary cause of the Civil War (slavery was central), it intensified North-South economic grievances and was cited in some secession debates as an example of federal overreach.
5. Chicken War / Chicken Tax (1960s, United States vs. European Economic Community)
• U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on light trucks and other goods in retaliation for EEC restrictions on U.S. poultry exports.
• Escalated into a transatlantic trade dispute, affecting auto and agricultural sectors.
• Long-term legacy: The "Chicken Tax" on light trucks remains in place today, shaping the U.S. pickup truck market.
6. Banana Wars (1993–2009, United States vs. European Union)
• U.S. challenged EU preferences for Caribbean/African bananas over Latin American ones (favoring U.S. companies like Chiquita).
• Led to multiple WTO cases, retaliatory U.S. tariffs on European luxury goods (e.g., cashmere, cheese, handbags).
• Highlighted tensions over trade preferences, colonialism's legacy, and corporate influence in trade policy.
7. U.S.-Japan Trade Conflicts (1980s, including semiconductor and auto tariffs)
• U.S. imposed tariffs and quotas on Japanese cars, electronics, and semiconductors to counter perceived "unfair" practices.
• Sparked political friction, accusations of protectionism, and retaliatory threats.
• Contributed to broader U.S.-Japan economic rivalry during Japan's rise as an economic power.
These examples show tariffs often serve as proxies for deeper issues: regional economic rivalries, federal vs. state power, class interests, or geopolitical leverage. While some (like the Corn Laws repeal) led to liberalization, others (like Smoot-Hawley) amplified crises. In the U.S., tariffs repeatedly divided North vs. South or industry vs. agriculture, influencing party politics for over a century.

(02-21-2026, 06:08 PM)The Crying Bunny Wrote: I think our tariffs should match every nation we deal with.

It's only fair, amirite?

(02-21-2026, 03:38 PM)Kenzo1 Wrote: Trump`s tariffs are taxes .
U.S. consumers and businesses pay most of the costs from the Trump tariffs.

Americans, not other countries, paid Trump's tariffs in 2025


I cant fathom why people in America wont understand the trumps tariffs are a bad thing, to America. Other countries already moved on and long term business deals are made .

Quote:Sen. John Kennedy on the SCOTUS tariff ruling:

"If you listened to the oral argument in this case, Stevie Wonder could see this decision coming. What's the end result? Here's the end result: for 13 months, President Trump assumed tariff authority...Now, the President didn't just sit around admiring that trade authority, that tariff authority, sucking on his teeth; he used it, and he used it to negotiate trade agreements. India, Japan, South Korea, Europe. Those countries are not going to rescind those trade agreements. Not in your or my natural lifetime. And he would not have been able to do those trade agreements had he not assumed this authority."

(02-21-2026, 06:08 PM)The Crying Bunny Wrote: I think our tariffs should match every nation we deal with.

It's only fair, amirite?