Yeah, basically MQD gets applied and the the majority just kind of hand waives all the reasons why it shouldn’t apply: foreign affairs context, direct presidential delegation, pretty open ended statutory text. Really bad if you have other values besides schadenfreude.
I was just thinking yesterday, "It has been a while since I heard about the MQD." While I despise Trump's tariffs, I am not sold this is a win (both for legal and political reasons).
I will be a little bit trolling here, but it is true progs will say stuff like Trump is the next Hitler etc. but we can’t be too strenuous because the cons long term won’t allow us to do such wonderful things like forced medication, nuking property rights and waving debts for basket weaving degrees.
I wouldn't object to progressives wielding the MQD to stop some of the more dangerous things he's doing (if it could). I loathe the doctrine, but you play the hand you're dealt. I don't see the tariffs as that dangerous, and I believe they will ultimately hurt Trump's cause.
Other than the greater economic damage, someone imposing taxes without basis should be intolerable in a free society.
You're not wrong. Yet, I'm far more worried about other things he's doing.
You’re right. We have to remember the important roll courts played in policing Hitler and saving Weimar. 😜
Different constitutional settings. Of course the critical point is there’s an enormous tension between constrain Trump and construe ambiguous grants of authority very generously, and except for genuinely principled people like you the prog answer depends on whether the Pres is a D or an R.
As alluded to though, I still think the principled answer is also wrong because it essentially allows Trump to wield tremendous power for the bargain of being able to implement a bunch of other harmful liberty destroying things during democratic administrations.
Yes, I definitely knew that, but thanks for... hmmm... remind me? Yes, let's go with that.