White House Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director Peter Navarro Discusses U.S. -vs- China Trade Confrontation… — The Last Refuge

Posted on July 4, 2018 by teajr ✓كافر 🇺🇸

Last month the White House presented a 36-page outline of the U.S. position toward trade with China (full pdf below). White House National Trade Council and Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director Peter Navarro delivers a presentation to discuss that report. Very well worth watching: . Report below:

via White House Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director Peter Navarro Discusses U.S. -vs- China Trade Confrontation… — The Last Refuge

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to White House Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director Peter Navarro Discusses U.S. -vs- China Trade Confrontation… — The Last Refuge

  1. wethepeoplehandbook says:
    December 24, 2019 at 3:29 pm

    You had asked about Mark Levine on CTH. I cannot answer on CTHr as SD has barred me from commenting. I was taken to task for pointing out how the USMCA has more unconstitutional conditions than NAFTA ever had. The USMCE is like NAFTA on steroids. Our president is getting very bad constitutional advice. But SD is a Ristvan fan, so any comments to the contrary are to go away. By the way, Rud Ivstan is not a practicing lawyer (as far as I know), just a degreed one who is very adept at writing with clarity. He does have his JD so that means he’s in the same class with Mark Levine I described below.

    There are two types of folks who call themselves “constitutional lawyers”….originalist and all others. Levine is one of the “all others”. Originalist understands the original meaning of Art. VI, (especially the defining quote, “in pursuance of”.) but law schools do not teach it. They teach that the Constitution means what the judges say it means whether or not their decision (and opinion) is “in pursuance of” he Constitution. Levine is of the latter. So, for example, if Roe vs Wade is decided that abortion is ok, then Levine will consider it to be the Law of the Land even though the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to make decisions on “abortion”.

    Reply

Feed me