Aren't ex post facto laws and bills of attainder illegal?

[jmowreader]

Der Orangenfuehrer claims that if a US-based corporation moves jobs overseas while he's in charge, he's going to whack that company with a 35-percent tariff on any products they attempt to import into the United States.

Somehow I don't think that's even legal. He'd have to get a law that (1) attacked activity that happened before the law was passed - ex post facto - and (2) targeted one company - a bill of attainder - to make this happen...and for some reason I think our heavily-abused Constitution is still intact enough to say, "no, Donald, you can't do this."

[HassleCat]

1. Change the tax code

To specify higher rates for businesses that do certain things. This is what they do when they create customized tax loopholes for certain businesses, so I guess they could reverse the process.

[fleabiscuit]

2. As PBO called it, Trump is a "carnival barker."

The real show is inside.

[former9thward]

3. Are you in support of US companies moving jobs overseas?

[pnwmom]

4. The OP didn't say that. The OP is questioning whether

Trump is making more false promises.

[former9thward]

11. Nope, he/she replied to me and that is not what they said.

It can be difficult to try and speak for other posters.

[pnwmom]

13. Where? What quote?

[LanternWaste]

15. Or respond truthfully and accurately...

"It can be difficult to try and speak for other posters..."

Or respond truthfully and accurately.

[jmowreader]

7. No, but I'm not in favor of threats either

[maxrandb]

14. I'm sorry, but your post is a prime example of what is wrong with our country

Why not just say; "ifffin yore not fer us...yore agin us"??

You do realize that there are other options besides "move jobs overseas", or "35% tariff and trade war", don't you?

You know, just because the OP states that Trump's stupid plan is stoooopid, it doesn't not then mean that the OP supports US Companies moving jobs overseas.

Are you against automation, technology, or clean energy because it impacts workers in the coal industry?

Should we open a few rotary phone manufacturers, because, ya' know, a lot of folks that used to make rotary phones lost their jobs.

Sorry, but the solution is not simply an "either-or" game.

In fact, if the media had told the truth, you would know that trade has actually been a net gain in jobs for Americans. Why not build turbines and blades for wind power here, where it makes no sense to import them.

Our tech and micro-manufacturing has exploded. Why not expand that?

The America I used to know shot for the stars. Manufacturing steel is all well and good, but America used to look for the "next" steel.

That's how we stayed on top and provided a stable base for the Middle Class. We phased out the Horse and Buggy and went into automobile manufacturing. We appreciate the petroleum that fed our industrial age, but found we could produce a million times more BTUs by splitting a couple of atoms.

Sorry, but I'm offended that your post seems to imply that we either support Trump, or support shipping jobs overseas.

With all due respect, if that was your point, then...Fuck that noise

[former9thward]

16. "With all due respect"

Whenever anyone says that it means they have no respect whatsoever and everyone knows that --- so why say it?

With all due respect ....

[maxrandb]

17. With All Due Respect

I guess we understand each other then

[SidDithers]

18. Well said...

Sid

[COLGATE4]

5. It's not ex post facto so long as it refers to companies

that move overseas in the future. Nor is it a bill of attainder - it's not directed at any one specific company.

[jmowreader]

6. The way I'm reading Trump, is different from how you are

According to Sunkist over there, a company that is manufacturing things in the US, and decides it needs to close its US-based factory and move the jobs overseas, will suffer a 35-percent tariff on the goods it attempts to import to the US.

The bill he will have to write to enact the tariff will be:

1. In retaliation for something that company did in the past - hence it is ex post facto
and
2. Only applicable to the company that moved - hence it is a bill of attainder

If he decided to place a 35-percent tariff on ALL goods similar to the ones made by the company that moved that are made in the country it moved to, it would be legal. It would also spark a huge trade war with that country - which, I fear, is Trump's whole intent.

[COLGATE4]

8. Tax pies/tariffs are not retaliatory so long as there's

a reasonable (read 'not crazy') justification for their enactment. Remember that this isn't being done by Trump - Congress would have to pass the 35% tariff However that whole point is moot because the Ex Post Facto Clause has been held to apply only to Criminal legislation (Weaver v Graham, 1981). In addition even if this were not the case the tariff in question would apply to a certain type of company (i.e. one that moves production overseas). It's not singling out any one company.

[Hekate]

9. The problem with Mad King Donald is he thinks he can run the country like he runs...

...his golden tower. No, Donald, you can't just make up laws by yourself and execute them.

His believers are so stupid they think he can do all these things he says he can without so much as a nod to the Congress.

I think the stuff he's doing right now is designed to show he's king. I think some of it is flat out illegal, like making trade deals. He's not president yet.

Gods help us.

[LisiFFXV]

10. It is legal

and it's going to burn the lower class whites who voted for him badly.

Remember, bills of attainder are mostly applicable to criminal law. They are obviously unconstitutional, as the constitution says so. He is proposing massive tariffs on various industries. It has been done routinely before.

Ex posto facto laws are also clearly unconstitutional for the same reason. There is no reason to try to "back date" any of this. It will just be applicable going forward with the same disastrous results.

[meow2u3]

12. But King Donald wants to pass a bill of attainder criminalizing minorities

for no reason other than their religion, skin color, or national origin, for starters--and then bribe judges into ruling his bill of attainder constitutional.

I wouldn't put anything past this cold-hearted, soulless criminal.

[onenote]

19. The SCOTUS has held the ex post facto clause applies only to criminal laws

Wouldn't apply to a tariff.