Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ajtj's Post-Lobotomy Market Charts and Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (91888)	5/27/2025 3:10:58 PM
From: ajtj99	Respond to of 97384

The act allows it. However, using the act as a means to enact these kinds of global tariffs is not adhering to the intent or the strict reading of the law. This link breaks it down pretty well: congress.gov If Apple wanted to push back on this, they could. They should sue, really.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (91888)	5/27/2025 3:23:35 PM
From: ajtj99	1 Recommendation Recommended By Sun Tzu Respond to of 97384

A key argument by the administration under Section 232 is that economic security is national security. I think this could be easily slapped down in court. I could envision someone standing in front of the Supreme Court and Roberts asking, "If I have a Trillion dollars in bonds and cash, I may have economic security. How is that the same as National Security? I can't protect a country by papering it with bonds or currency. You can't hold a stack of $100 bills above your head and protect yourself from a bomb landing on you."