Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump, Tariffs, Conservatism and the Constitution
wiki ^ | wiki

Posted on 04/28/2016 7:21:59 PM PDT by tophat9000

Tariffs as a source of federal government Revenue

So there seem to be some conservatives that are scoffing at Trump talking about tariffs as part of reinvigorating domestic US Industries ... protecting them....

Yet tariffs are probably one of the most back to the founders concept that any candidate is talking about

Look at the graph and then read the Wiki page you'll see that tariffs on Imports was the prime source of income for the federal government before the federal income tax system

When America was young and weak, tariffs were the founding fathers tool to promote growth of domestic us industry and also was the the federal government main revenue source

So tariffs to promote domestic industry and to raise revenues is about about as much "original founding fathers conservative intent as you can get

Free trade when is truly free trade is great, but if becomes predatory trade tariffs are a completely legitimate constitutional tool that the founding fathers used

Whether you believe or don't believe in the use of trade tariffs ....no one can argue that it's unconstitutional or against original Founders intent... history shows that's a complete lie.. ..Trump is just being a constitutional originalist in his tool of choice for promotion of us domestic industry

(Excerpt) Read more at en.m.wikipedia.org ...


TOPICS: Education; History; Society
KEYWORDS: 2016election; constitution; election2016; government; newyork; tariff; trump

1 posted on 04/28/2016 7:22:00 PM PDT by tophat9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Every time Trump says tariffs will “save jobs,” he is not being an originalist. That’s not why the Founders wrote them into the Constitution. An originalist would know.


2 posted on 04/28/2016 7:29:14 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

It’s obvious that you are neither an originalist or informed on the matter.


3 posted on 04/28/2016 7:41:57 PM PDT by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Trump is going to build a wall, a great big beautiful wall.


4 posted on 04/28/2016 7:45:16 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Off the NWO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Of course tariffs are not unconstitutional. As long as they are duly passed by both the Senate and the House and then signed into law by the President.


5 posted on 04/28/2016 7:49:58 PM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon ("I play to people's fantasies." - Donald J. Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000; All
Here is Trump’s basic tax plan.
TAX REFORM THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

The following material is from a related thread and supports the material in the OP imo.

Not only were most of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wealthy, but they put their money where their mouths were by committing themselves, and all other wealthy Americans, to uniquely pay the taxes needed to run the federal government. This is evidenced by the following excerpt from the writings of Thomas Jefferson.

The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied [emphasis added]. … Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings.” —Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.

But also consider that in the early days of the nation, state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if rich people limited the federal taxes that they paid by policing Congress to tax and spend only for things that it could justify under its Section 8-limited powers.

But since rich people have evidently forgotten about Congress’s limited power to appropriate taxes, they are now probably bribing lawmakers to put loopholes into appropriations laws that benefit the rich.

The problem with bribing lawmakers is that lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes into appropriations bills that Congress cannot justify under Section 8.

Remember in November !

When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the new president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach, putting a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes for example.

Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

6 posted on 04/28/2016 8:14:34 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

wow!!!!! you need to really really really really to read some basic US economic history 101

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400280.html


7 posted on 04/28/2016 8:40:19 PM PDT by tophat9000 (King G(OP)eorge III has no idea why the Americans are in rebellion... teach him why)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Apple stock has gotten smoked the past 2 days because it’s iPhone sales in China have taken a hit. The biggest part of the problem is how China manipulates it’s trade deals with the US. At any given time China will throw up roadblocks to a US company’s product, invariably to move sales to a preferred China vendor.

What would you do about this?


8 posted on 04/28/2016 9:32:19 PM PDT by MaxistheBest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

The Tariff Act was passed to “save jobs.” Right. You need to learn basic reading comprehension.


9 posted on 04/28/2016 10:04:00 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: major-pelham

Quote me the Constitution regarding tariffs, originalist. Here’s a hint: tariffs were intended to raise revenue, not “save jobs.”


10 posted on 04/28/2016 10:06:54 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Try reading dumb ass. And by the way it the father of progressivism Woodrow Wilson, that ardent supporter of free trade, sought to reform tariffs.

Alexander Hamilton argued that tariffs would encourage domestic industry. Other nations offered their industries significant subsidies, or money given by a government to support a private business. Hamilton contended that a tariff would protect U.S. industry from the effects of these subsidies. (Concerns over “dumping”—imported goods sold at less than their fair value to gain unfair advantage over domestic goods—would also be addressed in the Tariff Act of 1816.)

For example, a Northern manufacturer of cloth would benefit from a tariff on cloth imported from England, which would make English cloth less competitive.


Under Clay's proposal, the manufacturers of the North would be protected by relatively high tariffs and would become a large market for agricultural products of the West and the South.


After the Civil War, domestic policies continued to favor high tariffs, strengthened perhaps by the fact that industry was spreading through more of the nation. By the 1890s Congress had added an important innovation to the legislation: a delegation of power to the executive branch to adjust tariffs in specific circumstances. An early example was what are now called “countervailing duties.” These were tariffs the executive branch would order to counteract foreign subsidies on products exported to the United States. The executive branch, without further action by Congress, could measure the foreign subsidy and determine the duty to countervail, or compensate for, that duty. This became one of a large number of such adjustment devices.


President Woodrow Wilson, an ardent supporter of free trade, sought to reform tariffs.

11 posted on 04/28/2016 10:26:45 PM PDT by tophat9000 (King G(OP)eorge III has no idea why the Americans are in rebellion... teach him why)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

Alexander Hamilton spoke of “infant industries.” Donald Trump speaks of slapping a 35% tariff on F-150’s to punish Ford for making them in Mexico. Is Ford Motor co. an infant industry? Is Trump Hamilton, now, sweetheart?


12 posted on 04/29/2016 12:22:47 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Every time Trump says tariffs will “save jobs,” he is not being an originalist. That’s not why the Founders wrote them into the Constitution. An originalist would know.

That's right - he's only making sense and he's also not claiming anything like what you just "rebutted"....

Does it make one feel better to claim that if a person was saying something he hasn't been saying, for a reason he hasn't used, would be wrong in saying what he hasn't said?

13 posted on 04/29/2016 4:16:22 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: trebb

Good question, thanks. I have yet to see Trump claim that he wants to raise tariffs simply in order to raise revenue, but maybe he has. Please bear in mind that the op posited that he is a “constitutional originalist.”


14 posted on 04/29/2016 5:09:15 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

If I’m the CEO of John Deere do I want a tariff on anything?


15 posted on 04/29/2016 5:13:16 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
If I’m the CEO of John Deere do I want a tariff on anything?

is structuring trade policy to John Deere's benefit exclusively the very definition of crony capitalism?.. picking winners and losers?

Trade policy need to be structured to the overall general benefit of the country economic health (and it's needs vary at any given time depending on its health and problems..its dynamic not static)... trade policy is not to just benefit certain government favored businesses

John Deere certainly wants to be able to export out of this country to other countries so certainly wants us to try and have other countries have open markets.... but John Deere also certainly doesn't want other countries being able to import cheap product that undercuts John Deere into this country.....

and that's only a concern to a business that actually exports or imports in to or from other country

businesses that have exclusively domestic markets ..exclusively domestic manufacturer ... exclusively use domestically produced products ( or any combination of those factors).so are using all or a high percentage domestic labor...are certainly going to be in favor of import tariffs and would care less about others countries reciprocal tariffs on us since they're not exporting anything

that's the whole Balancing Act with tariffs and import export it's finding that Goldilocks zone of not too hot not too cold

but that's the concept of making a deal that's mutually benefits both parties or in this case mutually benefits both countries economies

16 posted on 04/29/2016 8:51:32 AM PDT by tophat9000 (King G(OP)eorge III has no idea why the Americans are in rebellion... teach him why)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000

I only picked John Deere as an example nothing to do with exclusivity. Also you completely forgot to factor in the best deal for John Deere’s customers which is the biggest factor.


17 posted on 04/29/2016 9:08:30 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

no I understand and I use John Deere is an example back to you...but that the point it not policies structure to the benefit a particular subset of companies....

it’s what’s the overall benefit to the US economy and its citizens

to a domestic company that doesn’t export or import... then tariffs are a 100% benefit to them and 0% hindrance to them

You know the logic of free trade goes hand-in-hand with logic open borders if you look at labor as another product you import.... importing cheap foreign labor is the same as importing cheap foreign product ...they both undercut the domestic source.....after all labor is a product....

people just don’t see it that way because when they go down to Walmart and buy the cheap product they’re dont see themself as buying labor

but then they do see it when they go down to the local Home Depot and they buy the cheap Mexican labor standing out in front

we rant about the Wall Street Journal and the GOPe wanting to keep the cheap labor express open.... but the cheap product we want is from the cheap labor Express just external to the country....

tariffs are as much building a border wall as physically building border wall is... whole point is to control our borders and prevent unlimited access in to our country of what damages our economy and Country...


18 posted on 04/29/2016 9:48:06 AM PDT by tophat9000 (King G(OP)eorge III has no idea why the Americans are in rebellion... teach him why)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson