Trump Thread

[a completely inoffensive name]

When we interpret "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" do we naively say that someone found innocent of murder can never ever be charged of the crime of murder again?

Offence refers to the act itself not the name of the crime. I lied to you and I lied to another person, leading to a loss of money on both their parts. Shouldn't both individuals be able to seek recourse? If one loses his case, the other loses his case as well?

Even if this all works out legally, I am not sure I like the practical implications of it.

[Montmorency]

ACIN is correct as to the implications of the 11th amendment vis-à-vis sovereignty. Though the strict use of the amendment is limited, it rests on the basis that the states are sovereign entities of themselves -- united and subordinate to the federal union for specific delineated purposes but not inherently subordinate in all matters to the federal union -- which was the original understanding common among the majority of the founders.

What does it mean for state sovereignty that the 5th Amendment has been incorporated to the states, as have many other amendments been? What does it mean for "dual sovereignty" if this doctrine was established prior to incorporation of federal Constitution to states, including the critical 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection clause? What does it mean for the concept of jurisdiction that it is possible to commit a federal offense in any state or territory of the United States, but not vice versa? What does it mean if the ACLU is correct that the old common law of Britain had no exception for "separate sovereigns" despite Britain being a union of kingdoms? That states have sovereignty to enact and enforce their own laws distinct from the federal government does not obviate the question of the 5th Amendment, which refers to rights of individuals and not states. The question we've suddenly begun debating is merely the following:

Is it consistent with the Double Jeopardy protection of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution for a defendant to be punished separately in state and federal court on a single equivalent charge for a single aspect of a single act or event?

When we interpret "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" do we naively say that someone found innocent of murder can never ever be charged of the crime of murder again?

Offence refers to the act itself not the name of the crime. I lied to you and I lied to another person, leading to a loss of money on both their parts. Shouldn't both individuals be able to seek recourse? If one loses his case, the other loses his case as well?

Even if this all works out legally, I am not sure I like the practical implications of it.

You're talking about something entirely different here: counts of a single crime. I'm not sure you have a full understanding of the Double Jeopardy clause. Double jeopardy is when a defendant is charged, tried, and or convicted and sentenced doubly. Doubly here means "for the same underlying act". For example, if it were the case that "murder" were a federal offense as well as a state one, it would be possible for a defendant to a single murder charge to stand in state court, be found not guilty of murder, then consecutively stand in federal court. Why would this not violate the 5th Amendment? This lawyer baldly asserts that just such a case of state murder vs. federal murder may be consecutively prosecuted because "[d]ouble jeopardy only applies to one jurisdiction at a time", yet in the situation described we see that the jurisdictions are overlapping, not discrete. In fact I struggle to think of a situation where jurisdictions do not overlap, except Washington DC, US territories, and overseas military establishments.

A single-domain example of how the courts have ruled on double jeopardy would be on the distinction between drug possession and "possession with intent to sell". I don't know how widespread this is, but in Florida convictions involving both were struck down as contrary to the Double Jeopardy clause. Because the underlying offense - possession - is the same for both charges.

AFAIK almost all drug offenses can be both state and federal. As noted above, the federal jurisdiction stretches completely over all states. It really does appear contrary to the 5th Amendment if the state can try you for possession, punish you, and then the federal government can turn around and try you for that exact same possession.

Here's the Cato amicus to look through, and a joint one with the ACLU.

ACIN, I fear you may be advancing a 19th-century concept of "states' rights" that is no longer valid (and arguably never was), one that was also used by SCOTUS (e.g. Lochner) to negate the federal government's enforcement of the 14th Amendment (except on behalf of business).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

While Trump is touting this as the best agreement since sliced bread , it would appear that the newly reworked deal on North American trade has made improvements for the American economy without unduly harming our neighbors. Of course, it could still backfire with automakers sending all the manufacturing to high-education low wage sties like China etc.

[Montmorency]

Nafta required automakers to produce 62.5 percent of a vehicle’s content in North America to qualify for zero tariffs. The new agreement raises that threshold, over time, to 75 percent.

A real breakthrough!

For the first time, the new agreement also mandates that an escalating percentage of parts for any tariff-free vehicle — topping out at 40 percent in 2023 — must come from a so-called “high wage” factory. The agreement says those factories must pay a minimum of $16 an hour in average salaries for production workers.

Doesn't sound like this would benefit many on the continent, if the factories just leave the continent. Why not rules that actually rein in big business?

Perhaps the biggest sticking point in negotiations over the last month was the issue of Canada’s protection of its dairy market, including limits on imported dairy products from the United States and government support that gives Canadian products an advantage on international markets against American ones.

“Dairy was a deal breaker,” Mr. Trump said on Monday.

The new agreement gives the United States victories on both fronts. It gradually opens the Canadian market to more exported American dairy products, including “fluid milk, cream, butter, skim milk powder, cheese and other dairy products.” Canada agreed to eliminate a program that helps Canadian sellers of certain milk products, at home and abroad.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/cana...-industry.html

Removal of the dairy Class 7 in Canada, which was only created after Trump's inauguration, and covers the following products: milk protein concentrate, skim milk powder and infant formula. Access to 3.6% of the Canadian dairy market. About as much as TPP would have granted.

The TPP deal gives access to 3.25 percent of Canada's dairy industry while the new USMCA deal provides the U.S. with about 3.6 percent of total Canadian milk production under a tariff-free quota.
[...]
"The Canadian government actually has given [the Americans] less than what I expected that they would give," said Leblond. "I expected something a bit above 5 percent, and at some point I heard the Americans were asking for 15 percent. So in the end the deal is at 3.6 percent. I see that as a win for Canada."

This is the great re-negotiation?

It's pretty much just NAFTA with a new name and worse bilateral relations in the long-term. Will this even be approved by Congress, let alone Canada and Mexico?

Among the small-but-significant items in the new agreement are a measure to push Mexico to make it easier for workers to form and join labor unions, steps to allow American financial services companies better access to Canadian and Mexican markets and a provision to extend the intellectual property protections of American pharmaceutical companies selling prescription drugs in Canada.

Without looking deeper, the first sounds good, second sounds neutral, and the third has always been overwhelmingly bad. The US-driven international copyright/patent/trademark regime needs to come down.

[Montmorency]

Lol

https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/...s-all-branding

"But [Trump] has now repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to slap his name on deals and arrangements that closely resemble those he had sworn to tear up."

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trump’s sales pitch notwithstanding, it’s more of a NAFTA rebrand than a brand new deal. Moreover, as Kimberly Ann Elliot pointed out in her WPR column yesterday, the terms of the updated agreement closely resemble those of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the multilateral trade pact, negotiated by the Obama administration with 11 other countries, that Trump withdrew from as one of his first official acts as president. In other words, Trump just slapped his name on the façade of an edifice someone else built and claimed credit for it.

The same is true of his claim following the NATO summit in May that his tough line on allies’ defense spending got them “to substantially up their commitment . . . at levels that they’ve never thought of before.” It is certainly possible that Trump’s animosity toward the alliance caused some member states to either accelerate their spending increases or else tailor their declarative policy to fit Trump’s preferences. But the target of budgeting 2 percent of GDP toward defense spending emerged during the George W. Bush administration; the agreement to set a deadline for reaching the target was an achievement of the Obama administration; and the increased defense spending that Trump took credit for had already begun in response to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine.

A similar dynamic was at work when Trump and European Commission President Jean-Clause Juncker agreed in late July to set aside threats of damaging automobile tariffs and instead open negotiations for a wide-ranging trade pact between the U.S. and the European Union. Although the jury is still out on the ultimate outcome of those talks, they have already been compared to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that the Obama administration was negotiating with the EU, which was suspended when Trump took office.

It’s likewise still too early to tell if Trump’s diplomatic engagement with North Korea will pay any meaningful dividends in terms of dismantling the North’s nuclear arsenal. But if the expectations of the expert community are any guide, here, too, Trump has followed the same playbook, threatening nuclear war before essentially endorsing the Obama administration’s failed policy of “strategic patience,” rebranded as a love story featuring himself and a nuclear-armed Kim Jong Un.

What are the implications of Trump’s penchant for creating crises, then claiming exaggerated credit for resolving them on terms that closely resemble the status quo ante? Domestically, to his opponents’ chagrin, it could help him solidify support among his base, as well as among softer supporters who were swayed by his often misleading rhetoric but had begun to question his tactics. The outcome of the midterm congressional elections a little more than a month from now will offer a clear indication of whether voters are ready to swallow another dose of Trump’s snake oil in 2020.

Internationally, the implications are both reassuring and worrisome—reassuring because fears that Trump is set to upend and remake the international order might end up being overblown. Trump has introduced an enormous amount of uncertainty to international affairs and damaged U.S. ties with allies in ways that could prove to be lasting. But he has now repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to slap his name on deals and arrangements that closely resemble those he had sworn to tear up.

That means that the other major crises on Trump’s docket, rather than escalating, might end up being defused in a similar fashion. Certainly China will try to wind down its own trade war with the U.S. by offering enough superficial concessions to allow Trump to declare victory and come home. Iran, too, might begin to see the appeal of pursuing a Trump-rebranded nuclear accord that differs only marginally from the one he withdrew from in May.

[...]

It’s possible that the U.S. might have benefited from the approach that fueled Trump’s rise in the early years of his public life. A brash risk-taker who questioned sacred cows and challenged conventional wisdoms might have reinvigorated U.S. foreign policy in the face of a rising China and resurgent Russia. Instead, the later Trump has prevailed, promising much, delivering little and making sure his name is featured prominently on the marquee.

Yo legit, he's not just a sleazy used car salesman as an epithet, he is almost literally a sleazy used car salesman.

...

Nice site btw, shame about the paywall.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lol...Yo legit, he's not just a sleazy used car salesman as an epithet, he is almost literally a sleazy used car salesman.
Nice site btw, shame about the paywall.

Use real-estate salesmen? Telemarketer from hell? Most whores are more ethical?

Swear to God anyone reasonably close to centrist the Dems prop up would nab my vote. Have not voted for a Dem for President since I started voting in Presidential elections in 1984.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm not trying to defend him, but when was the last politician who didn't claim victory at all costs? Nixon's Cambodia farce to George W's "Mission Accomplished"?

Democracies force politicians into these short term grabs for publicity, and unsurprisingly those best at it do the best. Many countries are only insulated from this by the ability of the political parties to restrict choice using various mechanisms. Open primaries gave Trump a chance in a way that just can't happen in (for example) the UK. We can only have as a leader whoever has managed to climb to the top of one of the two greasy poles.

[Xiahou]

Swear to God anyone reasonably close to centrist the Dems prop up would nab my vote. Have not voted for a Dem for President since I started voting in Presidential elections in 1984.

We both know the Democrats won't put up a centrist. They've been sprinting left ever since Bernie nearly took the nomination out from under Hillary. Socialism is cool now- it's what all the kids are talking about.

Again, I think Trump is personally obnoxious. However, policy-wise he* hasn't been too bad. The biggest thing I'd criticize him* for is not doing more to reign in spending, but sadly I think we're past the point where any politician of either party is willing to seriously reign in spending- there's no incentive. We're just going to keep going full-throttle til we hit the brick wall and worry about the consequences then.

*I refer to Trump's policies, but of course, I mean his administration's policies. I don't really think he personally has much interest in any policy specifics beyond a couple hobby horses.