this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
337 points (99.4% liked)

World News

47196 readers
2115 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary: Congress has not delegated (and may not delegate) all power over tariff enactment to the president. It would violate the separation of powers.

The Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president's emergency powers to safeguard the U.S. economy.

"The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage," a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. "That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Eh, it was actually their second attempt. Their first one failed pretty hard (the articles of Confederacy) so they made adjustments. I think they would be shocked that we stuck with their second attempt this long (and through a civil war, no less).

IIRC, in the first attempt the federal government was much weaker overall and the state governments had their own executives and stuff and the whole thing kinda wound up being a bureaucratic nightmare. In their second attempt they thought it might be best to have a reasonably powerful executive.

They were naive in some ways and definitely made mistakes and were racist slavers and genocidal generally speaking, but yeah.