zlacker

>>bobcha+(OP)
>> Our rulers seem to think that the U.S. imports more than it exports, so the net effect will be positive.

It is eye opening to see people so casually speak of American "rulers". Not politicians. Not business leaders. Rulers. That's new.

>>sandwo+Vs
It reflects the nature of the current trade war. It's not congress levying import taxes. It's not the secretary of commerce. (Lutnick has been completely out of the loop at times during the Canada-U.S. trade-war.) It's Trump declaring spurious emergencies to abuse IEEPA and unilaterally pass tariff's without the approval of congress.

At the same time, the Trump administration has taken issue with the independence of judiciary branch. When a judge ruled against one of their deportations, the executive branch ignored the ruling and argued that the judicial branch is subordinate. i.e. The king is above the law. So far, there have been no consequences. This is, quite literally, rule of a sort that hasn't been enjoyed by European monarchs since people became serious about enforcing the Magna Carta.

For the moment, Trump is ruling as an absolute monarch. It remains to be seen if there will be a response to assert the supremacy of law and the independence of the judiciary branch, or if the Republican controlled congress will assert it's right to control economic policy. If the law is not enforced, then Americans have a de facto king. Institutions do not defend themselves. People do.

>>beloch+rz
The checks and balances still exists in theory. The problem is that a slim majority in congress and a slim Supreme Court majority aren't willing to use their checks and are instead ceding power to the President.