Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m Weekly ¤Learn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m Weekly ¤Learn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", sykesix asked the members: "What do you do if you arrive early at movie besides go to the snack bar?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (7) |
Author: albaby1 ✶❂🐝 GOLD
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 88930 
Subject: Re: O Canada: 35% Tariffs for You
Date: 07/11/25 10:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 7
Mad King Donald threatened Canada with 35% tariffs in an unhinged letter that eventually cites fentanyl as a problem when less than 1% of fentanyl seized originates in Canada, challenging Canada to solve a problem that does not exist.

To be fair, this is not necessarily a sign of Trump being out of it. It's more likely just the Administration trying to defend the tariffs against legal attacks.

As has been noted (and held in the court of international trade case), Congress has the power to set tariffs. The President doesn't have inherent tariff-setting authority. He only has the tariff powers that are delegated to him by Congress.

The President wants to raise tariffs because that's the trade policy he wants to implement - but most of his tariff-setting authority is limited to things like emergencies or border control. So even though his tariffs are driven by his economic policy preferences, he doesn't really have the power to decide what tariffs should be imposed for general economic or trade reasons. So these tariffs are on very shaky legal ground.

Which is why the pronouncements have tended to include fentanyl, or border control, or some other factor aside from trade deficits. That way the Administration can point to them in court and claim that he's exercising a delegated authority to impose tariffs.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 88,852 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (7) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community | Privacy