Obama changed the trade policy with Iran without Congressional approval. Trump changed the trade policy with the EU, Mexico, China, and Canada without Congressional approval. Do you see a meaningful difference between these two actions?
IJ - I have advocated many times that the Constitution is an outline to be filled in via legislation. However, I have never argued that a power reserved for one branch should be handed over to another. Article 1, section 8 is crystal clear. This is not a Presidential power. It is a power granted Congress. Full. Stop.
The President shouldn't have unilateral action to change the law. That includes tariff rates and sanctions. Only if Congress authorized them to do so would it be arguably within the bounds of the Constitution.
Nope. The Constitution does not provide the POTUS any power to negotiate any trade agreements internationally. All of that is specifically assigned to the Congress.
I think you need to get current on trade agreements and fast trade agreements and what Presidents have done to expand their authorities. Things like NAFTA can be negotiated by the President and needs ratification by Congress unless they make into an Accord. It is a prevarication of the laws but overcomes resistant Congresses so that we can move forward with our foreign affairs. Obama and Clinton were masters of this.
Yes, in that Iran is much more of a military or terrorists threat than Mexico, Canada, or the EU. So for that reason, I would have liked to have had Congress be involved on the Iran deal.
That said, I’d support a constitutional amendment eliminate all US tariffs.
Comments: Add Comment