Hacker News Reader

Comment by beloch | Hacker News Reader

You also wouldn't go out of your way to piss off America's two biggest export markets: Canada and Mexico. As it stands, not only are there significant counter-tariffs that would make U.S. manufacturers even less competitive in Canada[1], there is significant consumer backlash to anything American-made where, just a couple months ago, products "Made in the U.S.A." would have been viewed favourably[2].

The way Trump has done things, any company that manufactures in the U.S. had better be able to get by with just the domestic U.S. market, because exports to Canada and Mexico aren't likely to be significant for quite some time, even if Trump backs off quickly. Lasting damage has already been done.

________________________

[1]It remains to be seen if Mexico will eventually retaliate.

[2]Perhaps not favourably in terms of price/quality competitiveness, but certainly in a geopolitical "support your neighbour instead of China" sense.

View on HN

It also breaks a lot of the way businesses make and sell stuff today.

For example, several car makers makes cars in Canada, Mexico and the US but sells them across the borders (and globally). Honda makes Civics and CRVs in Canada but sells them in the US, but the Accord is made in the US and sold in Canada. So now if there are tariffs on car imports and especially if there is also a reciprocal tariff, Honda gets hit both ways. What would they do? Make some civics in the US and some in Canada? Seems very inefficient.

Factually despite all the noise there are no significant tariffs in either direction at this point in time, 98% of trade is tariff free under the free trade agreement. Mexico and to a lesser degree Canada are in a more favorable position than they were before the tariffs as they are the only countries in this position [1]

[1] https://semianalysis.com/2025/04/10/tariff-armageddon-gpu-lo...

My experience is this: The majority of Americans have a hard time believing we (Canada) are their biggest export market and trading partner generally. Because they barely think about Canada, and when they do it's as a quaint and cold place of no real importance to them.

And this perception has worked in Trump's favour. "Those weak irrelevant people up there are taking advantage of us, time to teach them a lesson" works well when the people you're telling it to don't realize "those people" are their single biggest customer and a source of wealth for them.

American business people aren't generally accustomed to treating their customers this way. I hope they come to their senses.

I'm guessing a few weeks of higher prices will change consumers' minds.

Will that even matter though?

There's a while before another election and longer while before the person imposing tariffs would expectedly leave.

There is a non-zero chance he have at least one more term.

Non-zero in the sense that there is a non-zero chance of an outright coup.

There is absolutely, unambiguously no Constitutional method by which this will ever be true.

It is unfortunately not as unambiguous as one may like:

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/31/nx-s1-5191889/is-trump-runnin...

No, it really is.

22nd Amendment:

> No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

12th Amendment:

> no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

You can produce the same bullshit arguments for literally any law in existence because language is inherently ambiguous. If someone starts wiggling into, "well technically it's a bit ambiguous whether we're allowed to mow down peaceful protestors with machine guns," it is incumbent upon all of us to say "no, actually that's not ambiguous."

Courts will look to the public attitude to assess these arguments, and the public attitude should be that blatant accounting tricks like the VP switcheroo are incompatible with both the language and intent of the law.

Or you could try and read the link I provided:

> But winning an election is not the only way a person can become president. And there are hypothetical situations involving presidential succession, Baude adds, that are "not addressed as fully" by the Constitution's text. They reveal ways in which the common understanding of the 22nd Amendment's presidential term limits could be challenged in court. One theory: Trump could become vice president and then president in 2029

> Still, in court, a lawyer could try to argue that being a "natural born" citizen, at least 35 years old and a resident within the U.S. for at least 14 years are the only presidential eligibility requirements specified in the Constitution, says Stephen Gillers, a professor emeritus at New York University School of Law, who proposed in 2004 that Clinton run for vice president.

I'm unconvinced that the Supreme Court will look towards public sentiment.

I did read it, and that argument is bullshit, just like a hypothetical argument that e.g. the government can mow down protestors because they held a mass trial declaring ("satisfied due process") that all people in the street are guilty of a crime and subject to the death penalty. Nothing in the Constitution precludes such an interpretation.

There is no way to write words that preclude all such interpretations, that does not make all possible interpretations valid or reasonable.

> I'm unconvinced that the Supreme Court will look towards public sentiment.

Yet stunningly, SCOTUS decisions overwhelmingly align with cultural attitudes of their time because that is in fact the role of SCOTUS — to adapt interpretations of text to the current cultural moment. That's why it's notable in the few occasions where they conflict.

I know originalists and textualists like to act otherwise, but they're liars, and you know this because they do in fact rule against the text of law when the text conflicts with their cultural imperatives.

Your first argument is hyperbolic.

Secondly you may wish to argue the Supreme Court has acted in such a way historically but recent history clearly demonstrates otherwise:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-...

The more hyperbolic the example, the easier it should be to demonstrate why the language of the Constitution precludes it. Yet you cannot, because that's not how language works, per my point. If I start pushing for this interpretation of the Constitution, the civic, intellectual, and honest reaction is not to say, "hmm, actually it is pretty ambiguous!" It's to say: "that obviously is not allowed and would be tantamount to a coup."

Everyone knows Presidential terms are meant to be limited to two. Everyone knows going for a third term would be an accounting trick. They know it, you know it, I know it.

Your selection of one example out of the 47 cases SCOTUS decided that year (+ countless cases they didn't grant cert to) is evidence of my point, not yours. How many of the other 46 cases can you name? How many of the other 81 cases between then and now?

I'll guess you could name fewer than 4 of them, ergo, as I said: "That's why it's notable in the few occasions where they conflict."

I take it then the courts finding on presidential immunity also supports your view of unambiguous interpretations and the court following public opinion?

I said neither that there are unambiguous interpretations (in fact I said the opposite, that all texts are intrinsically ambiguous but that does not make all interpretations equally sound)

Nor did I say "the court follows public opinion."

I said "courts will look to the public attitude to assess these arguments", which is true, and "SCOTUS decisions overwhelmingly align with cultural attitudes of their time" which is also true.

And yes, the Presidential immunity argument is exactly one such argument: the pro-dictator cultural movement in the US is significant and vocal, while the anti-dictator movement is full of equivocators like yourself who say, "well you know, the Constitution is a bit ambiguous on this point..."

So yes, actually, that decision is an excellent case in point, and a clear reason that SCOTUS should know the American public has no pseudo-intellectualized appetite for a third term.

> in fact I said the opposite, that all texts are intrinsically ambiguous but that does not make all interpretations equally sound

Your original comment was this:

> There is absolutely, unambiguously no Constitutional method by which this will ever be true.

So which is it, there's absolutely no ambiguity or there is some?

> And yes, the Presidential immunity argument is exactly one such argument: the pro-dictator cultural movement in the US is significant and vocal, while the anti-dictator movement is full of equivocators like yourself who say, "well you know, the Constitution is a bit ambiguous on this point..."

So you're saying that the Supreme Court ruled Presidential immunity because of vocal public opinion for dictatorship but suddenly the same court won't rule in favor of interpreting the law to support a third term?

Seems contradictory chief. Regardless I personally hope it doesn't come to a court decision but we'll see in 4 years.

I didn't say that SCOTUS won't rule in this direction. In fact, again, my caution indicates I believe the exact opposite: it is very possible they will, which is why we should cede no ground on the "it's ambiguous" argument. It truly is not ambiguous. It is not even ambiguous to the people who are pushing it. Again: everyone knows it's an accounting trick.

I mean the constitution was effectively ruled to be unconstitutional with the presidential immunity case, so what does anything even matter anymore?

All the more reason to aggressively nip this in the bud so we can get to work repairing the horrible damage they've done to our country.

Yes, republicans in congress can stop this at anytime, and once people tangibly feel prices increase congressional leaders will get scared.

If congress turns heavy blue in 2026, they can rain hell on the mild conservative goals that Trump seems to have taken a nuclear approach to. Congressman do care about their seat, and they do get scared of losing power. Right now Americans are particularly sensitive to price increases as well, with the pandemic inflation still fresh on everyone's mind.

What is the margin for 2026 changing the Senate majority significantly?

I personally am not seeing what influence Congress could push that will hinder the current executive branch even if it wished to.

Personally disappointed to see opposition US liberals in the US still fantasizing that the problem of Trump is going to be solved "eventually" in 2026 or in the courts.

More protests needed. This is tyranny-lite in action, huge overreach by the executive that I'm pretty sure the hallowed founders -- that people always talk about with reverance down there -- would be horrified by. 18th century revolutionaries would be disappointed to see the way people are rolling over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com