undefined | Better HN

0 pointspadjo1mo ago0 comments

You said the DoJ, which is part of the executive. The judicial branch just ruled on a matter of law. That's what they do.

Also the power of the purse has always been with congress, the constitution is very clear on that.

Finally the notion that the US is stripping power from the executive is honestly farcical. The exact opposite has been happening for decades now.

If you are a US voter then the reason for the current political situation is becoming very clear to me right now.

0 comments

bdelmas1mo ago

You know what after digging more into the subject I can say that you are effectively right. So thank you for taking the time and commenting on that. I still think it should be a tool a US president can have. Congress is not fast enough to put pressure and removing it as much as the executive branch can do. I think that this and similar economic tools are critical just seeing how thing are unfolding and how the future is going to look like.

For DOJ ya I meant the judicial branch.

padjoOP1mo ago

Well kudos for admitting your error, it's rare enough these days.

Here's the thing, the executive does have the power to enact tariffs in emergencies, but if you actually want to change industrial policy it's a long term project that takes probably minimum 10 years of sustained consistent policy. Not the whims of an administration.

There's a great case to be made for fixing the balance of trade. Randomly applying tariffs is not achieving it, it's just a grift for kick backs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse