Unfortunately, long before it Trump it was demonstrated again and again that enforcing the law against government is, perhaps not impossible in extreme cases, but 100x harder than the reverse.
Capitalists only care about capital. Witness how fast the DEI stuff was jettisoned once it was determined to be unprofitable under the current administration.
DEI programs were (largely) incentivized by one political faction in the United States primarily via legal rather than market mechanisms, and in response to this a rival political faction explicitly ran on undoing those legal mechanisms to disincentivize DEI programs.
Of course one of the ways the government can enact policy is by making something cheap or expensive for firms participating in capitalism to do, which incentivizes their behavior; but characterizing DEI programs as something that corporations jettisoned because it was determined to be "unprofitable under the current administration" ignores the fact that the current administration explicitly promised to end DEI programs in a political campaign in a democracy and then won an election.
Would this count as libel? It’s a publication of a false, damaging statement in a fixed form (writing, print, picture, broadcast) that harms a person's reputation, exposing them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.
Yes, people expect SCOTUS to rebuff Trump on the tariffs. [0]
Lately SCOTUS has been providing stricter textual interpretations of Constitutional questions. Many of these have aligned with Trump administration arguments based on the power of the executive as outlined in Article II. The text says, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America," and, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress.
One thing the Constitution is very clear on, though, is that only Congress can impose tariffs ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"). Furthermore, recent rulings of this Court have established the major questions doctrine, which says that even if Congress delegates the specifics of implementing its powers to the Executive branch, that delegation cannot be interpreted broadly. It can't be used to create new broad policies that Congress didn't authorize.
Therefore, because the text of the Constitution explicitly grants the right to impose tariffs to Congress /and/ Trump's imposition of tariffs is both very broad and very substantial, many people believe that SCOTUS will deny Trump's tariffs.
The case as argued is about Trump's right to issue tariffs under the IEEPA (a law Congress passed to give the President some ability to take economic actions due to international emergencies, which do not explicitly include tariffs), and there is some debate about what a negative ruling would mean for the return of tariffs to merchants who have paid them. Both of those points require careful consideration in the decision. Will the ruling limit itself to just tariffs issued under the IEEPA or to the President's ability to establish tariffs under other laws? If the Court rules against the tariffs, will the government be required to pay people back, and if so, to what extent? It's not surprising that the decision is taking some time to be released. There's a lot of considerations, and every one is a possible point for disagreement by the justices.
> One of the key arguments is that Congress can't take that power away from him. For example, Congress can't tell him that he can't fire executive-branch staff, because the executive power rests with him, not with Congress.
Just want to comment what an incredibly piss poor argument that is, because if you take it to its conclusion, it means all of the power rests with the Executive and none with the Legislature. That is, by definition, the Executive branch has all the people that actually "do stuff". If the executive has full, 100% control over the structure and rules of the branch, why bother even having a legislature in the first place if all the laws can be conveniently ignored or "reinterpreted".
You could argue Congress still has the power of impeach if they believe laws aren't being faithfully excited, but I'd argue that is much too much of a blunt instrument to say that laws should be able to constrain what a President can do within the executive branch.
“In 1969, Schenck was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of speech that the government may ban to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).”
Not necessarily as gemini might take other variables in consideration.
But it certainly will make a lot of intermediaries (between brands and consumers) suffer. This is a huge threat for Amazon.
reply