Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "" video.

  1. No it didn’t. It legislated the ability to delegate it when it chooses. Get your facts straight.
    4
  2. That is just factually incorrect. Article III of the constitution clearly lays out the functions of the court system and that includes the lower courts.
    4
  3. Nothing if you like being taxed.
    3
  4. You understand the constitution states Judges can’t be held personally liable for cases bought before them. It is a cornerstone of any free democracy.
    3
  5. The court was a panel of 11 that contained appointees from both Republicans and Democrats.
    3
  6. The US constitution explicitly states Article III judges are not to be contained by term limits. Are you suggesting the US constitution be ignored. How would you feel if a President ignored the 2nd amendment.
    3
  7. ​@Design_no I don't know anything, I was merely referring to the US constitution, something you think can just be ignored. Or was your comment just pure ignorance.
    3
  8. The constitution gives tariff duties to congress.
    3
  9. ​@jamesg1367 No it didn't. In the legislation you refer to strict limits and restrictions were placed on the President. You need to read the; 1. Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act 2. Trade Expansion Act 1962, and 3. Trade Act 1974. You are demonstrably wrong.
    3
  10. Nope Factually incorrect, the 7 judge panel was a mix of Republican and Democrat appointees. Edit: it was a 11 judge panel not 7.
    3
  11.  @Ubique2927  No it wasn’t the appeal was heard by 11 judges and the decision went 7-4 against the Trump administration. Where are you getting your news from? i can quote several independent sources to demonstrate the facts.
    3
  12. Are you even American? You seem to have no knowledge of the US constitution.
    3
  13.  @arrakisdune5346  The Supreme Court is under no obligation to hear any possible appeal. It can simply rule the federal courts decision stands. It does this action all the time.
    2
  14. No Factually incorrect. The constitution actually delegates certain powers to different levels of government and the judiciary is one of those levels. You need to read your constitution. The US constitution actually states the congress has tariff powers.
    2
  15.  @Ubique2927  why would you just believe one source from a MSM news outlet?
    2
  16. ​ @Ubique2927 But you only quoted one source. Skynews. So your reply makes no sense.
    2
  17. ​@Ubique2927 No, I fully understand that. MAGA have literally no concerns about truth or facts.
    2
  18. ​@michaelhuegel4146 No argument about the tariffs being in place as that's exactly what the court recommended, and its ruling doesn't apply to all the tariffs as the steel and aluminium are separate matters. I'm puzzled don't facts matter?
    2
  19. And that’s what the constitution states.
    2
  20. ​@RaisinBran-ir4iq Perhaps Congress isn't in favour of such radical tariff measures. There is significant legal opinion (two separate court decisions) that the executive doesn't have the power to impose such wide ranging tariffs. Congress passed numerous acts to enable the executive to implement some measures but it put limitations and restrictions on what the President can do. Exactly what this means will be sorted out by the courts.
    1
  21. ​@XxxAtlantaxxX A tariff is an import tax paid for by the consumer. Any economic textbook will tell you that.
    1
  22. ​@XxxAtlantaxxX Spin it however you wish, don't drink coffee, don't work, I don't give a rats. It is a tax.
    1
  23. Cite the examples of your claim.
    1
  24. ​@arrakisdune5346 So you have zero evidence of your claims. Thanks that's all I needed to know.
    1
  25. So here are the facts. The current tariff situation with the Trump administration has not reached the SCOTUS. Two federal courts have both ruled against some of the Trump tariffs (not the steel or Aluminium tariffs as these are a separate issue). If you make a claim then at least have some resemblance to a coherent argument and that requires some evidence of some sort.
    1
  26.  @arrakisdune5346  And you misunderstand how the legal system works. Both federal courts a 3 panel US international Trade court and an 11 panel appeals court have both ruled Trumps tariffs illegal. Now the SCOTUS is under no obligation to hear any possible Trump appeal it can simply rule that the federal courts rulings stand. It may hear an appeal if the appeal has in its opinion some justification. This action by the SCOTUS of not even hearing an appeal happens regularly as it did with many of Trumps attempts to overrule the 2020 election result. You have provided zero research abilities so I don’t really understand your problem.
    1
  27.  @arrakisdune5346  Nope just factually incorrect.
    1
  28.  @arrakisdune5346  You display zero research abilities. Two separate federal courts have both ruled Trumps tariffs are illegal.
    1
  29. Article III of the constitution clearly lays out the authority and function of the courts. It most definitely has power over the executive branch and the constitution clearly states this. Read it.
    1