@Conserv_a_Tude@JimboStanford Its not in the majority opinion. The phrase "other available measures" that you quoted, does not appear in the majority opinion. There is no previous case law regarding the legality of the president imposing tariffs under Section 338. Whatever AI you are using is getting it wrong
@Conserv_a_Tude@JimboStanford You can read the opinion for yourself. Section 338 is mentioned 3 times, all in Kavanaugh's dissent. https://t.co/3S3DTbHjg7
@BothSide_E@KobeissiLetter There are different legal authorities that he can use or try to use. Some legal authorities such as Section 301 and 232 are very legally sound but take an extensive investigation and notice and comment period. Some like Section 338 require less ramp up time but legally untested
@PrairieCatboy Youbare drscribing an export tax, not a tariff. Are broad export taxes legal in Canada? They aren't in the US and it seems limited in Canada https://t.co/mgoR0tOOID
@MNW96220990@MadHabber@petereharrell@KathrynMathias1 Yep deal with it daily. Have a client that imports refined sugar from Canada and that TRQ is gone within seconds. But are you really surprised Trump is being hypocritical?
@Padii_me@classonde He's talking about the Agreement for reciprocal trade (ART). EU, Japan, Korea, Taiwan are the main ones. A few other southeast Asia and Central America countries.
@MadHabber@petereharrell@KathrynMathias1 There are some dairy products with tariff rate quotas or very high duty rates, but that in itself is not discrimination. It only becomes discrimination if Canada was importing dairy products from other countries at a lower rate than it does for US products. Im not aware of that.