Trump Asserts He Can Force U.S. Companies to Leave China

[Swordsmyth]

Article 1 Section 1 ALL legislative powers vested in Congress.

And they passed a law.

[GunnyFreedom]

And they passed a law.

They pass lots of laws. Like 95% of them blatantly violate the Constitution.

[GunnyFreedom]

You are trying to distract from the absurdity of your recommended strategy.

If I honestly thought that a government that obeys the Constitution was something ‘absurd’ that I had to ‘distract’ people from, then I wouldn’t have been openly promoting government that obeys the Constitution for the last 32 years.

[Swordsmyth]

They pass lots of laws. Like 95% of them blatantly violate the Constitution.

The contention that the law is unconstitutional does nothing to prevent its use by our enemies nor would our refraining from using it do so.
It is not clear that it is unconstitutional and the current precedent is that it is Constitutional.

[Swordsmyth]

If I honestly thought that a government that obeys the Constitution was something ‘absurd’ that I had to ‘distract’ people from, then I wouldn’t have been openly promoting government that obeys the Constitution for the last 32 years.

That's not what's absurd.
What's absurd is to think that if we voluntarily refuse to use a power that it will somehow create the precedent that it is unconstitutional and prevent others from using it and that depriving ourselves of power that our enemies use will enable us to take back control of our government.

[GunnyFreedom]

The contention that the law is unconstitutional

not a contention. fact. It is illegal for the American Executive to exercise legislative powers.

does nothing to prevent its use by our enemies

because our “enemies” violate the Constitution therefore we must also violate the Constitution?

nor would our refraining from using it do so.

I’m sorry to have to be the one to explain to you that if government refrained from exercising unconstitutional powers, it would absolutely be more Constitutional.

It is not clear that it is unconstitutional

lol yes it is.

and the current precedent is that it is Constitutional.

so because there is all this preexisting corruption we should double down on corruption ourselves. Otherwise the enemy will be even corrupt-er?

[GunnyFreedom]

That's not what's absurd.
What's absurd is to think that if we voluntarily refuse to use a power

not power, “violation.”

that it will somehow create the precedent that it is unconstitutional

it is already unconstitutional for the Executive to exercise Legislative power. No “precedent” needed.

and prevent others from using it

Our obedience to uphold and defend the Constitution is not contingent on some imaginary future person’s disobedience.

and that depriving ourselves of power

not power, “violation.”

that our enemies use will enable us to take back control of our government.

Indeed, stopping the practice of violating the Constitution will in fact lead to a government that more closely obeys the Constitution.

[Swordsmyth]

not a contention. fact. It is illegal for the American Executive to exercise legislative powers.



because our “enemies” violate the Constitution therefore we must also violate the Constitution?



I’m sorry to have to be the one to explain to you that if government refrained from exercising unconstitutional powers, it would absolutely be more Constitutional.



lol yes it is.



so because there is all this preexisting corruption we should double down on corruption ourselves. Otherwise the enemy will be even corrupt-er?

not power, “violation.”


it is already unconstitutional for the Executive to exercise Legislative power. No “precedent” needed.



Our obedience to uphold and defend the Constitution is not contingent on some imaginary future person’s disobedience.


not power, “violation.”


Indeed, stopping the practice of violating the Constitution will in fact lead to a government that more closely obeys the Constitution.

I'm done going around in circles with you.

I've discussed each of these points with you several times in a row.

Please re-read our past exchanges.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm done going around in circles with you.

I've discussed each of these points with you several times in a row.

Please re-read our past exchanges.

My premises are sound, my logic is unassailable, and my conclusions follow naturally from my arguments. Your repeated attempts to use propaganda and emotional extortion make me abandon logic and principle and join your Marxist Identity Political tribe have failed.

Re-reading your desperate attempts to make Ron Paul supporters abandon principles will not magically make my logic less sound.

[Swordsmyth]

My premises are sound, my logic is unassailable, and my conclusions follow naturally from my arguments. Your repeated attempts to use propaganda and emotional extortion make me abandon logic and principle and join your Marxist Identity Political tribe have failed.

Re-reading your desperate attempts to make Ron Paul supporters abandon principles will not magically make my logic less sound.

You are deluding yourself about everything but it doesn't change reality.

[GunnyFreedom]

You are deluding yourself about everything but it doesn't change reality.

If I had to make a bet, I’d bet on the guy who says we have to disobey the Constitution in order to obey it as the delusional one, but hey, I’ve only upheld and defended the Ron Paul platform for some 30 years, so what could I possibly know?

[Swordsmyth]

If I had to make a bet, I’d bet on the guy who says we have to disobey the Constitution in order to obey it as the delusional one, but hey, I’ve only upheld and defended the Ron Paul platform for some 30 years, so what could I possibly know?

I never said that and I pointed out that I never said that multiple times.

This is either another delusion you are suffering from or a deliberate lie.

[GunnyFreedom]

I never said that and I pointed out that I never said that multiple times.

Actually, you have repeatedly asserted that the only way to eventually end up with a Constitutional government in the future, is to continue to exercise all of these unconstitutional powers now.

You have cycled through a small handful of similar justifications as to WHY obeying the Constitution one day requires disobeying it today, but the commonalities in every description you gave were that 1: we HAVE to exercise these unconstitutional powers, and 2: if we don’t then we will never have the opportunity to obey the Constitution in the future.

This is either another delusion you are suffering from or a deliberate lie.

unlike your weird attempts to paint me with off the wall random motives and illicit intentions, I am applying actual logic to your actual words and clarifying for everyone what you are actually saying.

I frankly don’t know WHAT your motives are, and I’d rather not speculate on that.

Your actual words are plenty enough for one person to deal with.

[Swordsmyth]

Actually, you have repeatedly asserted that the only way to eventually end up with a Constitutional government in the future, is to continue to exercise all of these unconstitutional powers now.

You have cycled through a small handful of similar justifications as to WHY obeying the Constitution one day requires disobeying it today, but the commonalities in every description you gave were that 1: we HAVE to exercise these unconstitutional powers, and 2: if we don’t then we will never have the opportunity to obey the Constitution in the future.

You can continue to mischarachterize what I said but people can read for themselves, I said we must use all powers available to protect and restore America and to keep from being destroyed, I also said that we could repeal the laws delegating the powers at any time and amend the Constitution to prevent them from being passed again.

The problem is not that we wouldn't be using the powers but that we wouldn't be using them while the opposition continued to, if we put an end to the delegation they would not have powers that we failed to use.

[GunnyFreedom]

You can continue to mischarachterize what I said but people can read for themselves,

yes, they can. And I encourage everyone to pore over all of these conversations. It will make it all very clear.

I said we must use all

unconstitutional

powers available to protect and restore America

You cannot restore America by exercising unconstitutional power.

and to keep from being destroyed,

the exercise of unconstitutional power is what is destroying America.

I also said that we could repeal the laws delegating the powers at any time and amend the Constitution to prevent them from being passed again.

No serious Constitutionalist believes that it is legal for the Executive to exercise legislative powers.

The problem is not that we wouldn't be using the powers but that we wouldn't be using them while the opposition continued to,

In America, we only have one President at a time.

if we put an end to the delegation they would not have powers that we failed to use.

Yes, their not having unconstitutional power is the goal. The best way to get there, is to fail to use unconstitutional powers.

[Swordsmyth]

China signaled on Monday it was now seeking a "calm" end to its ongoing trade war with the U.S., as Asian markets crumbled and China's currency plummeted to an 11-year low following the latest tariffs on $550 billion in Chinese goods announced last Friday by the Trump administration.

News of the possible opening in negotiations came shortly after President Trump threatened to declare a national emergency that would result in American businesses freezing their relationships with China. Trump's tariff barrage on Friday was a response to China imposing its own retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion in U.S. goods.
At the Group of Seven summit in France on Sunday, White House officials rejected suggestions the president was wavering and insisted that his only regret was not implementing even more tariffs on China. Trump wrote on Twitter that world leaders at the G-7 were "laughing" at all the inaccurate media coverage of the gathering.
In response, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He told a state-controlled newspaper on Monday that "China is willing to resolve its trade dispute with the United States through calm negotiations and resolutely opposes the escalation of the conflict," Reuters first reported, citing a transcript of his remarks provided by the Chinese government. Liu is China's top trade negotiator.

The yuan also slipped to 7.1487 to the dollar, weeks after the Treasury Department formally designated China a currency manipulator. The Treasury Department said it will work with the International Monetary Fund to try to rectify the “unfair competitive advantage created by China’s latest actions.”

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...-year-flatline

[Swordsmyth]

You cannot restore America by exercising unconstitutional power.

Yes you can, a coup or revolution would both be unconstitutional but the end result could very well be the restoration of Constitutional government.

the exercise of unconstitutional power is what is destroying America.

America is being destroyed in many different ways by enemies both foreign and domestic.

No serious Constitutionalist believes that it is legal for the Executive to exercise legislative powers.

That simply isn't true, the current precedent is that Congress can delegate some powers.

In America, we only have one President at a time.

The bureaucracy is currently insulated from the control of the President and they continue to utilize delegated powers and the next President will use them unless we change the laws and amend the Constitution.

Yes, their not having unconstitutional power is the goal. The best way to get there, is to fail to use unconstitutional powers.

That does nothing to stop them, only changing the law and amending the Constitution will.

[GunnyFreedom]

China signaled on Monday it was now seeking a "calm" end to its ongoing trade war with the U.S., as Asian markets crumbled and China's currency plummeted to an 11-year low following the latest tariffs on $550 billion in Chinese goods announced last Friday by the Trump administration.

News of the possible opening in negotiations came shortly after President Trump threatened to declare a national emergency that would result in American businesses freezing their relationships with China. Trump's tariff barrage on Friday was a response to China imposing its own retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion in U.S. goods.
At the Group of Seven summit in France on Sunday, White House officials rejected suggestions the president was wavering and insisted that his only regret was not implementing even more tariffs on China. Trump wrote on Twitter that world leaders at the G-7 were "laughing" at all the inaccurate media coverage of the gathering.
In response, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He told a state-controlled newspaper on Monday that "China is willing to resolve its trade dispute with the United States through calm negotiations and resolutely opposes the escalation of the conflict," Reuters first reported, citing a transcript of his remarks provided by the Chinese government. Liu is China's top trade negotiator.

The yuan also slipped to 7.1487 to the dollar, weeks after the Treasury Department formally designated China a currency manipulator. The Treasury Department said it will work with the International Monetary Fund to try to rectify the “unfair competitive advantage created by China’s latest actions.”

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chi...-year-flatline

So basically, the result of this attempt to exercise unconstitutional power, is China positioning itself in the historical narrative, as the adult in the room. lol

he who owns the past, controls the present. he who controls the present, commands the future.

Someone still stuck in 3GW will barely understand 4GW, and 5GW will be totally meaningless.

Why not just send China a squadron of F35s gift wrapped with bows? That would do about as much towards winning your war with China as this disaster.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes you can, a coup or revolution would both be unconstitutional but the end result could very well be the restoration of Constitutional government.

No, a coup or a revolution results in a new form of government altogether. That’s what words like coup, and revolution mean.

America is being destroyed in many different ways by enemies both foreign and domestic.

if America obeyed the Constitution we wouldn’t be in this mess.

The best way out of this mess, is to start obeying the Constitution.

That simply isn't true, the current precedent is that Congress can delegate some powers.

it is absolutely true that no serious CONSTITUTIONALIST believes that it is legal for a President to legislate.

The bureaucracy is currently insulated from the control of the President and they continue to utilize delegated powers

”the bureaucracy” is not an entity which can be delegated to by the Constitution.

The Constitution delegates ALL legislative authority to the Congress.

The fact that an IRS lackey might do something illegal is not justification for a President to ignore the Constitution.

and the next President will use them unless we change the laws and amend the Constitution.

All of this is already illegal. I don’t think making it “more illegal” is going to help.

That does nothing to stop them, only changing the law and amending the Constitution will.

almost nothing the government does is authorized by the Constitution. Why do you think that adding some more text to it will change anything?

[Occam's Banana]

It isn't tyranny to use the delegated powers that have already been delegated to protect and restore America.

The Constitution is good and important but it isn't holy writ, it could have been written to give the powers to the President and then him using them would only be tyrannical if he misused them just as it is with Congress, our system is broken and currently gives the President those powers so it isn't tyranny for him to use them unless he misuses them.

But what is to be the standard by which one may be judged to have "misused" them, if not the Constitution? That is, if the Constitution is not the "Supreme Law of the Land," then what is? And why should effort be expended arguing over the Constitution if some other doctrine supersedes it on such matters? Would it not be more appropriate and sensible (not to mention briefer) to simply say, "So much the worse for the Constitution, since this other thing overrules it?"

If Congress passed a law to retract them and the President vetoed it that would be corrupt because it would be opposing a return to the intent of the Constitution but there is no moral or ethical bar to using the powers if the Constitution gave them to him or if they have already been delegated.

Despite all the brouhaha, I am still not clear on your position with respect to the question of whether the delegation of Congressional responsibilities to the Executive is constitutional (as the Constitution currently stands). In post #127 you said that the Constitution does not expressly forbid such delegation and that non-delegation can only be inferred from it. You have also spoken of delegation as having precedent. Here, you say that a Presidential veto of a Congressional retraction of its previous delegation would be "corrupt" because it would "oppos[e] a return to the intent of the Constitution." But unless I have missed it, you have not explicitly stated whether you think delegation is actually constitutional. So for purposes of clarification before I remark any further: is it your position that delegation is constitutional under the Constitution as it currently exists? Yea or nay? If you were a SCOTUS judge (today) and the question came before you (today), how would you rule?

[Schifference]

The contention that the law is unconstitutional does nothing to prevent its use by our enemies nor would our refraining from using it do so.
It is not clear that it is unconstitutional and the current precedent is that it is Constitutional.

Sounds like a man of God, a religious minister needs to use Satan and evil to conquer Satan and evil so that rules can be made against Satan and evil.

[TheCount]

Sounds like a man of God, a religious minister needs to use Satan and evil to conquer Satan and evil so that rules can be made against Satan and evil.

There's a reason why people were calling him Boromir.


This whole line of argument is a gaslight anyway, as he explicitly said that he wants a totalitarian executive government: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-of-government


He doesn't want temporary fascism "until the Constitution is restored," fascism is the desired result.

[Schifference]

Police are out of control and constantly break all the laws they are paid to enforce. They murder people in cold blood and lie about it. They are catapulted to the highest level where a person that even questions their validity on any occasion is incarcerated and loses everything trying to show/prove they were wronged. Is the answer to this absurd abuse of terror, this war on civilians, to take up arms against all police and shoot to kill any LEO on sight? Do we need new laws that say killing civilians, dogs, lying, stealing, beating, dealing drugs, ........ are illegal for police to do? Any cop that you look at the wrong way these days can and will charge and arrest you with any and every charge. They will go about their business of doing the same to their next victim while you spend all your assets and beg for mercy from the courts. You probably end up accepting a plea deal even though you never did anything wrong in the first place just so you can be a prisoner outside of the gates in the minimum security section. Your next encounter with police is yes sir, okay sir........ Should you take up arms to solve this problem? Does there need to be new laws on the books? Is what I described a delusion of my own making? Should we ignore this situation?

[Superfluous Man]

This argument that saying, "the other side uses this power against us so we need to use it against them," is extra-surreal in this instance.

Aside from the spuriousness of the entire line of argument that others have pointed out, in this case it wouldn't even work, since what Trump's claiming here is not a case of our side using it against the other side, but just another case of the other side using the power against us.

Trump is not "our side" here. He is the regime, and he is saying he wants to engage in this leftist abuse of his power against us, not acting on our behalf against the left.

[Pauls' Revere]

Okay, let me try this again. I’m looking for the Article, Section, and Clause of the US Constitution that authorizes a US President to order private free market companies to do.... well anything.


Article.



Section.



Clause.


It’s either there or it isn’t.

Perhaps the better question is, how does this law happen?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-hou...172450694.html
“Ultimately, he does have authority,” responded Kudlow. “It’s an emergency economic power authority,” he said, adding that Trump “is not intending to” block trade with China at this time.

I believe I posted it in a similar thread. My guess is that it is authorized much the same way businesses are prohibited from doing business with Iran or North Korea.

So, how does the law happen and why hasn't anyone revoked it?

[acptulsa]

Please quote the article and section where it is prohibited.

Well, come on, @GunnyFreedom. Tell him where the Constitution says, "And when we say, 'Congress shall...' we mean it. We don't mean, 'Congress shall tell someone else to...'"

And then tell him what would happen to a buck private in the Marines who says, "I know you told me to clean the latrine, Sarge, but you didn't tell me not to delegate that to Private Joe Blow. It isn't my fault he didn't do it."

LOL

You can't defend your strategy so you resort to sexual insults and pseudo-psychiatry of my metaphors.

Big mistake. One look at where this chihuahuabot spends his Saturday nights should be enough to see it's completely asexual.

The contention that the law is unconstitutional does nothing to prevent its use by our enemies nor would our refraining from using it do so.
It is not clear that it is unconstitutional and the current precedent is that it is Constitutional.

Notice that he presents the Constitution and the Law as if the Constitution is not the law. Notice also how he pretends that the government obeys the law.

You are trying to distract from the absurdity of your recommended strategy.

Complete projection.

Gunny, why are you wasting effort on this bot? Destroying his arguments completely will never stop him from yapping them over and over and over.

[Superfluous Man]

Perhaps the better question is, how does this law happen?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-hou...172450694.html
“Ultimately, he does have authority,” responded Kudlow. “It’s an emergency economic power authority,” he said, adding that Trump “is not intending to” block trade with China at this time.

I believe I posted it in a similar thread. My guess is that it is authorized much the same way businesses are prohibited from doing business with Iran or North Korea.

So, how does the law happen and why hasn't anyone revoked it?

Those questions are worth asking, but they don't negate Gunny's point.

The proper response of the president, or anyone else in the executive branch, to any unconstitutional law, is not just to call for Congress to repeal it, and then wait until they do, but to refuse to enforce it in the mean time. Unconstitutional laws are void just by virtue of being unconstitutional. They don't have to be made void by acts of Congress or court rulings, they're automatically already void. And it is the duty of the president, having taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, to make that determination that a law is unconstitutional on his own and to refuse to do that unconstitutional act.

[acptulsa]

There's a reason why people were calling him Boromir.


This whole line of argument is a gaslight anyway, as he explicitly said that he wants a totalitarian executive government: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-of-government


He doesn't want temporary fascism "until the Constitution is restored," fascism is the desired result.

Clearly, this is the New Site Mission.

[CCTelander]

Clearly, this is the New Site Mission.

Well, a lot seems to get overlooked and forgiven where SwordShyll is concerned.

[devil21]

There's a reason why people were calling him Boromir.


This whole line of argument is a gaslight anyway, as he explicitly said that he wants a totalitarian executive government: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-of-government


He doesn't want temporary fascism "until the Constitution is restored," fascism is the desired result.

That thread smells like dirty magic underwear. It details SS's dream of a totalitarian theocracy with a national religious mouthpiece who dictates the desires of the benevolent world government leader to the nation.