37.5% duty charged on Ascilab speakers shipped to US [Resolved]

[amper42]

For clarification, my understanding is he has put forth removing birthright citizenship when the parents are in the US illegally - going forward.

I am not of the understanding he is trying to rescind it for those already born here.

Why not? USA is also detaining and deporting people who have been here for 20 years. In fact, you can be a citizen, detained and deported without a proper hearing. All you have to do is look like you might be from somewhere else. The legal system is completely failing to halt the madness by providing a proper hearing before deportation.

 

[Groove01]

So forgiving Federal loans paid out to US citizens or using Congress to add seats to the Supreme Court are as extreme, in your view, as directly contradicting what is written in the US Constitution?

So let me see if I understand. This is bad

Presidential actions and legal challenges

• Emergency Powers and Tariffs: Presidents have used laws like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, citing national security or economic emergencies.

But this is OK less bad (edit):

• Biden v. Nebraska:In June 2023, the US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the Biden administration's plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for many borrowers.
  • The Court found that the administration lacked the authority under the HEROES Act (a federal law passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks) to unilaterally cancel such a large amount of student debt without express congressional approval.
  • The Court's majority argued that such a sweeping policy change fell beyond the Department of Education's power to enact through executive action.
  • This decision effectively halted the implementation of that specific student loan forgiveness program.

One was found to be illegal with no precedent, the other has precedent but is currently being challenged.

Help me understand “objectively”.

 

[levimax]

Some believe this is the actual reason for many of the disruptive, seemingly arbitrary changes of late. To benefit those in the best position to take financial advantage, to the detriment of everyone else. All the stated objectives are supposedly a smokescreen.

By that logic, you just announced that you are part of the problem. I would suggest caution in mixed, anonymous company.

I am actually optomistic about the future, could be wrong.

It appeared from your comments that you are not so I pointed out that if your analysis is correct you have an opportunity to make a lot of money.

Regarding powerful people blowing up the system to profit to me that seems a little far fetched as they have a lot at stake with the current system.

 

[jhaider]

Is your argument current POTUS is trying to rescind birthright citizenship of those born from parents that reside in the U.S. illegally?

And you believe that to be an order of magnitude higher (worse) that forgiving student debt?

Note that below I’m not arguing the merits of any position, only analyzing whether they rise to the level of directly injuring the American system of government by directly contradicting the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution.

Assuming arguendo the facts as you state them above, my argument is that one is a direct violation of the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment* and thus by definition an injury to our Constitutional system, and the other was found by that particular combination of Justices to be inconsistent with their interpretation of a statute passed by Congress. That happens all the time. NBD.

If one is of the view that 14A is wrong, the correct American approach to remedy is to amend the Constitution, not issue decrees.

*if you can be sued in US court or arrested for a crime, you’re “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. That’s what personal jurisdiction means. There are people who are not subject to US jurisdiction. The Israeli ambassador could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and our remedy would be expulsion absent Israel’s consent to try her.

Or the discussion to try and expand the Supreme Court.

That is not at all extreme, from a Constitutional perspective, unless done improperly. It’s just a path expressly allowed in the Constitution: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Article III, Section 1.

So expand the Court by means of a reform bill passed by both houses of Congress and presented to the President, all good. Dictating from the White House that the Court is now 15 Justices or whatever would be an equivalent Constitutional injury, yes, if actually, you know, done.

 

[Buckeye Amps]

So let me see if I understand. This is bad

Presidential actions and legal challenges

• Emergency Powers and Tariffs: Presidents have used laws like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, citing national security or economic emergencies.

But this is OK less bad (edit):

• Biden v. Nebraska:In June 2023, the US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down the Biden administration's plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for many borrowers.
  • The Court found that the administration lacked the authority under the HEROES Act (a federal law passed after the September 11, 2001 attacks) to unilaterally cancel such a large amount of student debt without express congressional approval.
  • The Court's majority argued that such a sweeping policy change fell beyond the Department of Education's power to enact through executive action.
  • This decision effectively halted the implementation of that specific student loan forgiveness program.

One was found to be illegal with no precedent, the other has precedent but is currently being challenged.

Help me understand “objectively”.

Help me understand "moving the goal posts"...you were comparing removing birthright citizenship (which is in the constitution) to forgiving student loan debt. Not tariffs.

 

[Groove01]

Why not? USA is also detaining and deporting people who have been here for 20 years. In fact, you can be a citizen, detained and deported without a proper hearing. All you have to do is look like you might be from somewhere else. The legal system is completely failing to halt the madness by providing a proper hearing before deportation.

Is there a question here? Also which facts count in this discussion. Media reports or DHS, ICE official statements and published statistics?

 

[Groove01]

Help me understand "moving the goal posts"...you were comparing removing birthright citizenship (which is in the constitution) to forgiving student loan debt. Not tariffs.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware he has actually removed birthright citizenship. I said he has put forth the idea to do so.

You jumped in with a statement saying

-“…directly contradicting what is written in the US Constitution?”

Since he hasn’t revoked birthright and you are a fact based objective person, I assumed you were referring to an action he is currently doing that is “..directly contradicting what is written in the US Constitution?” Which I assumed was the tariffs. Which I believe you had previously stated as being at issue. I might be wrong on that one, apologies you jumped in the middle, so might have that one wrong.

Might I ask you to be less condescending and more clear in your questions and I’ll do my best to engage them in a more satisfactory manner.

 

[amirm]

Looks like we are expanding the discussion well outside the borders of tariff. As much as they can somewhat be related, let's close this thread before we get people starting to hate each other.

 

[amirm]

OP updated to reflect the resolution.