Oh well silly me, now the tariffs make sense to me

[seminole97]

In 1828, Andrew Jackson imposed tariffs to benefit Northern manufacturers which hurt the South. The South rebelled against the tariffs, as South Carolina came up with Nullification in response.

They threatened secession (the acting VP (Calhoun) resigned and went back home to South Carolina so they could send him back in the Senate!).

Nullification goes back farther:

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were a response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and established the idea that states could nullify unconstitutional federal laws. The resolutions were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and established the precedent that states could declare federal laws unconstitutional.

 

[bcherod]

So, you “expect” to know, for instance, all our military/nuclear secrets too? I’m being somewhat sarcastic here, but we elect our gov’t officials to do a job and I don’t think they need to be micro-managed? You must have more time for on your hands than I do to check on them. 😉

Hey, your guy just gave his boy the keys to the kingdom, allowing him and his team with all our financial information, and you’re not bothered in the least.

He hasn’t taken the oath, has no security clearance, but you’re okay with that.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I'm not against strategic tariffs. But nobody is giving me any details on our strategy here. (if there is one)

Robert Reich nailed the "strategy"...Trump TOLD us what the "strategy" was...

Hours before the Canadian tariffs went into effect, Trump was asked if there was anything Canada could do to stop them. “We’re not looking for a concession,” Trump said, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon. “We’ll just see what happens, we’ll see what happens.”

The real reason Trump has raised tariffs on Canada and Mexico is to show the world that he’s willing to harm (smaller) economies even at the cost of harming America’s (very large) economy.

The point is the show — so the world knows it’s dealing with someone who’s willing to mete out big punishments. Trump increases his power by demonstrating he has the power and is willing to use it.

The same with deporting, say, Colombians or Brazilians in military planes, handcuffed and shackled. If, say, Colombia or Brazil complains about their treatment, so much the better. Trump says, without any basis in fact, that they’re criminals. Then he threatens tariffs. If Colombia backs down, Trump has once again demonstrated his power.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Maybe you chould check the markets. They have rebounded after this news.

I guess that market thinks this is a win for America. Some of you need to get on board.

The markets were at record highs under Biden but you didn't think that was a "win for America". You're a f'n idiot.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

They threatened secession (the acting VP (Calhoun) resigned and went back home to South Carolina so they could send him back in the Senate!).

Nullification goes back farther:

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were a response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and established the idea that states could nullify unconstitutional federal laws. The resolutions were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and established the precedent that states could declare federal laws unconstitutional.

LOL...when was that idea adjudicated before the Supreme Court? Never? So no precedent established.

 

[Hammerhead02]

Who cares it will bounce back. I’ve been investing for a long time. I’m not concerned one bit. I just wanna get this fentanyl and drugs under control. Too many lives are wasted.

The war on drugs has always been proven to be successful.

 

[Hammerhead02]

My entire life, tariffs were a major plank of the Democratic Party. Until like 2016 exactly. You’re saying Democrats have been stupid for the 50 years before Trump?

You might want to look at more that Wiki.

 

[Hans81]

On major decisions like this? Absolutely.

Most of us are aware it is because trump is jealous of the way his wife looks at Trudeau.

Ok, I’ll let Trump know he should run his next “major decision” by you first. 😉

 

[Hans81]

The details will be shared in two weeks — just like the details of the heathcare plan.

Good one 😉

 

[Hans81]

Hey, your guy just gave his boy the keys to the kingdom, allowing him and his team with all our financial information, and you’re not bothered in the least.

He hasn’t taken the oath, has no security clearance, but you’re okay with that.

I thought we were talking about tariff’s here. Musk is a different story…I do think his “powers” need to be reviewed/possibly curtailed. However, I’m willing to listen to his initial cost cutting measures/ideas. We have a huge budget deficit…something needs to be done.

 

[HROT]

I thought we were talking about tariff’s here. Musk is a different story…I do think his “powers” need to be reviewed/possibly curtailed. However, I’m willing to listen to his initial cost cutting measures/ideas. We have a huge budget deficit…something needs to be done.

Tax cuts

 

[Hans81]

Tax cuts

Along with spending cuts.

 

[seminole97]

LOL...when was that idea adjudicated before the Supreme Court? Never? So no precedent established.

Blame Google’s LLM for not using the term in the exact same manner as you are.

BTW, those were resolved five years before the Supreme Court gave itself such authority in Marbury v Madison.

 

[Gus is dead]

The markets were at record highs under Biden but you didn't think that was a "win for America". You're a f'n idiot.

The stock market isn't the only measure of economic success. Idiot.

If it were, Biden would have been reelected.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Blame Google’s LLM for not using the term in the exact same manner as you are.

BTW, those were resolved five years before the Supreme Court gave itself such authority in Marbury v Madison.

So no precedent established. And certainly never "resolved".

Well, excuse me...the idea that states can secede because they're not happy WAS resolved.

 

[seminole97]

So no precedent established. And certainly never "resolved".

You're using precedent in a manner that was unprecedented when the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were resolved.

Well, excuse me...the idea that states can secede because they're not happy WAS resolved.

You can stick with 'might makes right' if you want, I'll stick with the Declaration of Independence.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You're using precedent in a manner that was unprecedented when the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were resolved.

I'm using precedent correctly. That you didn't isn't my problem.

You can stick with 'might makes right' if you want, I'll stick with the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration isn't a governing document. That would be the Constitution. You should have learned that in civics.

 

[seminole97]

I'm using precedent correctly.

Is it the only meaning?
Do you live in a world where nothing besides the Supreme Court has ever set a precedent?
Or is the meaning of that term broader than you're acknowledging?
We both know the answer.

That you didn't isn't my problem.

Reading comprehension failure on your part.
"Blame Google’s LLM for not using the term in the exact same manner as you are."

The Declaration isn't a governing document. That would be the Constitution. You should have learned that in civics.

I learned in my civics classes that the Supreme Court has referenced the Declaration of Independence in their opinions.
I don't know why you seek to diminish it, or it's importance.
Should have paid more attention in civics.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Yep - but the principles apply. 😉

Poorly.

 

[Jerome Silberman]

My entire life, tariffs were a major plank of the Democratic Party. Until like 2016 exactly. You’re saying Democrats have been stupid for the 50 years before Trump?

Those tariffs were to protect US industry from free-trade capitalists from moving jobs offshore. That is not what Trump's tariffs strategy is or has been.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Is it the only meaning?
Do you live in a world where nothing besides the Supreme Court has ever set a precedent?
Or is the meaning of that term broader than you're acknowledging?
We both know the answer.

If you're going to claim a state right for nullification you BETTER have a SC ruling to back it up rather than a couple of resolutions passed by individual states. More on those below.

Reading comprehension failure on your part.
"Blame Google’s LLM for not using the term in the exact same manner as you are."

As I said - clearly - I used it correctly. That you missed their incorrect usage is...once again...on you.

I learned in my civics classes that the Supreme Court has referenced the Declaration of Independence in their opinions.
I don't know why you seek to diminish it, or it's importance.
Should have paid more attention in civics.

Madison himself said the Virginia Resolution was never meant to propose the possibility of nullification: It has been said, that it belongs to the judiciary of the United States, and not the state legislatures, to declare the meaning of the Federal Constitution. ... [T]he declarations of [the citizens or the state legislature], whether affirming or denying the constitutionality of measures of the Federal Government ... are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection.

Yeah, your Virginia Resolution is out.

Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution says specifically: although this commonwealth, as a party to the federal compact, will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does, at the same time, declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose, in a constitutional manner, every attempt, from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact.

So that's out.

Then the attempts to recruit other states to their view turned into a beatdown. Vermont was one of a number of states that responded in opposition to the idea: "It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union."

Not one other state bought into the idea.

Lastly - nail in the coffin - the SC has ruled on nullification, you know...or maybe you don't. They've stated multiple times that the compact theory expressed in the resolutions allowing for state nullification of federal law is invalid. That's what we call precedent.

The idea that states can unilaterally nullify federal law is moot...it can't be done. You have not one leg to stand on.

 

[seminole97]

If you're going to claim a state right for nullification you BETTER have a SC ruling

This is before Marbury v Madison.
I know you didn't read the Texas Supreme Court decision in the abortion case you kept referencing, but in your civics instruction, did you ever learn about Marbury v Madison?

As I said - clearly - I used it correctly. That you missed their incorrect usage is...once again...on you.

Three questions you won't answer, because you know the answer.

Is it the only meaning?
Do you live in a world where nothing besides the Supreme Court has ever set a precedent?
Or is the meaning of that term broader than you're acknowledging?
We both know the answers, you just won't say them because it blows up your premise.
You'll duck them again, I guarantee.

Madison himself said the Virginia Resolution was never meant to propose the possibility of nullification: It has been said, that it belongs to the judiciary of the United States, and not the state legislatures, to declare the meaning of the Federal Constitution. ... [T]he declarations of [the citizens or the state legislature], whether affirming or denying the constitutionality of measures of the Federal Government ... are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection.

Yeah, your Virginia Resolution is out.

Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution says specifically: although this commonwealth, as a party to the federal compact, will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does, at the same time, declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose, in a constitutional manner, every attempt, from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact.

So that's out.

Then the attempts to recruit other states to their view turned into a beatdown. Vermont was one of a number of states that responded in opposition to the idea: "It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union."

Not one other state bought into the idea.

Lastly - nail in the coffin - the SC has ruled on nullification, you know...or maybe you don't. They've stated multiple times that the compact theory expressed in the resolutions allowing for state nullification of federal law is invalid. That's what we call precedent.

The idea that states can unilaterally nullify federal law is moot...it can't be done. You have not one leg to stand on.

Bravo, but that was never my point, and never my argument.

Ragnar wrote, "The South rebelled against the tariffs, as South Carolina came up with Nullification in response."

I pointed out, "Nullification goes back farther:"

Thanks for providing the fuller explanation of those origins, and confirming my point. Dumbass.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I pointed out, "Nullification goes back farther:"

Actually, you asserted this:

The resolutions were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and established the precedent that states could declare federal laws unconstitutional.

And it has now been amply demonstrated that they did nothing of the sort no matter what definition of precedent you wish to employ. Nullification has NEVER been "established" as a precedent. Anywhere.

Are you now going to argue the meaning of "established".

 

[seminole97]

Actually, you asserted this:


And it has now been amply demonstrated that they did nothing of the sort no matter what definition of precedent you wish to employ. Nullification has NEVER been "established" as a precedent. Anywhere.

Are you now going to argue the meaning of "established".

I told you that was a quote from Google’s LLM after you took issue with the meaning of precedent as used, then, in your desire to prove me wrong you went down a rabbit hole about the resolutions, apparently never recognizing I was pointing out the origin of the nullification argument, not making the nullification argument.
Dumbass.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I told you that was a quote from Google’s LLM after you took issue with the meaning of precedent as used, then, in your desire to prove me wrong you went down a rabbit hole about the resolutions, apparently never recognizing I was pointing out the origin of the nullification argument, not making the nullification argument.
Dumbass.

Then you should have realized, as I did upon first reading, that the LLM contention was incorrect. Posting inaccurate claims as your own is always a bad idea.

 

[seminole97]

Then you should have realized, as I did upon first reading, that the LLM contention was incorrect. Posting inaccurate claims as your own is always a bad idea.

Nah, I recognize that the word precedent has broader meaning, and was used contextually correct.
You just wanted to argue with me.
Dumbass.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Nah, I recognize that the word precedent has broader meaning, and was used contextually correct.
You just wanted to argue with me.
Dumbass.

As demonstrated, under no definition would the word “precedent” apply. Neither the Kentucky nor the Virginia Resolutions established any precedent. As Madison clearly said, they were opinions with no force.

And yes, I wanted to argue. The point was wrong regardless of who originated it. You could have just agreed with that immediately. You should have.

 

[seminole97]

As demonstrated, under no definition would the word “precedent” apply. Neither the Kentucky nor the Virginia Resolutions established any precedent. As Madison clearly said, they were opinions with no force.

And yes, I wanted to argue. The point was wrong regardless of who originated it. You could have just agreed with that immediately. You should have.

Then answer these questions:

Do you live in a world where nothing besides the Supreme Court has ever set a precedent?
Or is the meaning of that term broader than you're acknowledging?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Then answer these questions:

Do you live in a world where nothing besides the Supreme Court has ever set a precedent?
Or is the meaning of that term broader than you're acknowledging?

A precedent is a justification for a future action. The resolutions - and I've quoted both Madison AND the Kentucky Resolution - made no such case. Madison called the Virginia Resolution an opinion. The Kentucky Resolution, in fact, clearly says they will follow the laws of the United States and oppose what they regard as illegal measures through the Constitution. And even with that namby-pamby language, they couldn't get any other state to sign on to even the premise that nullification was a valid idea. At least six states - including the aforementioned Vermont - passed their own resolutions specifically dismissing the idea. Oops - opposing "precedent". Are you of the opinion that ANY claim, no matter how outlandish, establishes a "precedent"? And if that's the case, the word is meaningless.

You crawled down the "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" rabbit hole, speaking of those. The problem is it really doesn't. "Precedent" doesn't apply. It's a poor use of language and had you originally attributed the term to its source rather than posting it as if it was your own, I would have said THEY were wrong, rather than you. And they are.

 

[seminole97]

A precedent is a justification for a future action.

Not only.

an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

Was South Carolina’s nullification ordinance unprecedented? Or did Jefferson’s Kentucky resolution precede it?

Again, I’m not making the argument nullification was justified, nor that it wasn’t superseded by Marbury v Madison, simply that South Carolina didn’t birth that argument.

You can either understand that, or be wrong.

 

[prlyles]

The notion that I’m “rooting against the US” is absurd. There is a phrase Dan Carlin has said many times on his history pods, the most humane way to wage war is to get it over quickly. I’m paraphrasing there but that’s the gist.


ILast time we put tariffs on China, they just started buying their pigs from Russia. Then the Ag economy tanked. Then we had to bail out the farmers.

Trump had to do the same thing with soybeans his first term.

 

[prlyles]

Uncertainty and anxiety are part of life. Our President is taking control and demanding, via action, respect from the rest of the world. And he is getting it.

Nobody, including in the USA, respect Trump. They fear him because he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and that is scary.

 

[Gus is dead]

Nobody, including in the USA, respect Trump. They fear him because he doesn't have a clue what he's doing and that is scary.

Netanyahu seems to.