I know I should know this, but I admit that I don't.
Does anyone know why ANY president of our USA has the power to impose tariffs and revoke them at will, such as the steel one? Should this not be a function of congress? TIA
Tim
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
I know I should know this, but I admit that I don't.
Does anyone know why ANY president of our USA has the power to impose tariffs and revoke them at will, such as the steel one? Should this not be a function of congress? TIA
Tim
Discussion is locked
Mary Kay,
Thank you for the link. If I'm lucky, I'll report back to you before I'm 95 (I JUST turned 49) on the answer I was looking for. ![]()
I'm wondering if anyone out there might have a version of the answer to my question that could be digested in three or four minutes?
We all live in a hectic world and I just don't have the time to spend hours upon hours researching something I have little to no control over in the first place.
Google is good, if not stupendous, but if it brings back SO much info that the NEXT millennium arrives before you have time to sift though the chafe, I'm afraid I can't live that long. ![]()
I was hoping for a "lay person's" answer on this; you know, one of our resident "know-it-alls" who knows how to spin the "answer" the "right" way. ![]()
BTW, to one and all "know-it-alls" who may fit into my category: my question is legit and I'm NOT trying to "bait" ANYONE. I simply thought of this question and would like a SHORT/SIMPLE/STRAIGHTFORWARD answer to my question. Thank you.
Tim
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does empower Congress to assess "tariffs", but Congress long ago ceded that power pursuant to treaties (in this case, GATT) to the executive branch.
Thank you Paul.
Do you have any idea why so much power has been ceded to the executive branch and if anything can be done to reverse this DANGEROUS "trend"?
This is not a right/left issue.
Tim
Think you'll find that Dr. Bill is posting now as Bill Osler.
Roger,
I think I always could sense that you would pull my fat out of the fire should it come to that. ![]()
That said, I'm sorry for falling down on the job of now and then falling into the category of being someone worthy of your response (as evidenced by the recent fiasco over "conspiracy theories" as it is applied to the government that most "sheeple" (sp. ?) who inhabit our wonderful land known to some of us as the modern day PROMISED LAND.
Not interest-tweaking enough for you? I'm sorry to have failed your expectations for a stimulating dialog. ![]()
Tim
BTW, Roger, just because I've changed my user name to T Lee, does not mean that you should not call me Tim. I'm the same person, Tim; just indicating to the world of CNET and beyond that I'm T Lee for "official purposes". ![]()
As far as pulling your fat out of the fire, well, this particular example could be considered just casual information or even common courtesy (something very evident to be missing in the world all around us today). And a small attempt to head off anything that might get out of hand again.
As far as the rest, shrug, the differences are just there, as far as how what I and you believe or are willing to consider. Some things we're each going to think the other is crazy I'm sure.
My commments about not replying (which I have obviously been doing) was more about there are some areas it's obvious that to me it's not worth the hassel to me of getting involved while you (among others of all persuasions) seem to enjoy the contention and whiplash back and forth.
I've avoided most of a lot of threads lately, if you think about it. Some things no one is really interested in hearing anything but 'AMEN BROTHER'. The scary and sad thing is that people seem to be placing more and more issues in this category. They're adopting an attitude of I'm right, you're wrong, and I don't want to hear it.
Hmmm, didn't particularly think about the Tim vs T Lee when posted, guess I just picked up the sig.
roger
Roger,
I think I MUST tell that which some may have failed to understand;
I LOVE youR response and MUCHLY appreciate the fact that you ARE engaging me in multiple discourses as it pertains to the human experience on, as a former pastor (NO, I'm currently "ANTI-bible thumpin' right wing nuts but I'm in your corner BS) this "old ball of mud we call Earth".
Hey, Roger, must I spell it out in so many words here? I like you and your perspective on most everything.
Can you stand the heat of so acknowledging the fact you, an admitted conservative and/or middle-of-the-roader, can actually BE a friend of one contoversial character like me? hehehe
Tim
It was sabre rattling by the EU which brought the end of the steel tariffs. They were on the point of passing motions to implement retaliatory sanctions against your prime exports, to hit you where it hurts most. Given the relatively poor economic position of the US right now, you really didn't want to fight that war with us.
I did write at this same forum about two or three years ago that, as long as it stand together, the EU has got the strength to take on the US in an economic war and win. This climbdown shows that your own government realises that is now very much a reality, and the US no longer rules alone in that arena.
I am not gloating about this, and it pains me to admit this. But... it does show that Bush has at least made one sensible decision in his term of office, and avoided misery for tens of thousands of American workers and potentially a short term recession.
Hi, Dale.
It's all about electoral politics. Our steel industry (a shadow of its former self) is centered in states he either lost or won narrowly last time, so the tariff was an effort to boost his vote totals there. The retaliation would have opeed him to criticism everywhere else, so the hope was to say "the tariff was on as long as was really necessary," keeping some of the benefits in the steel-producing states, while avoiding the backlash elsewhere. The Rupublicans criticized Clinton for being completely governed by electoral politics, but Bush is even worse -- that's why we went into iraq, to give Repubican Congressional candidates something to tyalk about other than the lousy economy in 2002. Sadly, you can fool most of the people some of the time <sigh>, and it worked. BTW, when's the last time you heard the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" out of a Bushie's mouth?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
The same article that provides the head of state to make Presidential Directives and Executive Orders.
Some light reading for you and even you, yes you, could become a (to paraphrase) "resident actually-knows-a-little-bit" yourself.
You are welcome.
Imagine if our Queen had that power? Apart from the civil unrest which would ensue (we had one civil war over such draconian powers), all you non-Brits would be saying how we lived under the yoke of monarchist feudalism. I cannot see any difference between that scenario, and your own president being able to act unilaterally.
What I have always found ironic, and quite counter to professed claims to democracy and popular government, is how you could fight a war against my country over 200 years ago to rid yourselves of dictatorial rule by one person, then implement the same excess of power in the office of President of the United States?
Over here, the Prime Minister, who is the political equivalent to your President (the President is only equivalent to our Queen as your non-political Head of State on the world stage), does not have such powers. Even in time of national emergency, he only has immediate limited powers, before needing to consult with the Inner Cabinet to approve further measures.
I am not American, so haven't been born into such a cultural acceptance. As an outsider, I doubt I will understand how you can allow such power to be vested in one person, when your own history showed how deeply your repugnance of such a society, and what grave mistrust you have in such rulers.
Whether the President is elected or not, once in office, they have almost unstoppable power to do much as they wish, regardless of the will of the people. Given your history, I find it a great contradiction that you now so willingly embrace and encourage such a political framework, where once you opposed it with your lives.