Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bjorkman: Johnson Promises Passivity in Surrender to Executive Branch on Trade

In our discussion of the evidence three South Dakota farmers presented at Tim Bjorkman’s press conference last week on the damage Trump’s tariffs are doing to South Dakota’s farm economy, the question arose of what Bjorkman’s opponent in the Congressional race, Dusty Johnson, has to say about the tariffs and Congress’s proper role in rolling them back. Johnson did say in April, “Tariffs are not good for South Dakota agriculture.” However, in response to Bjorkman’s regular argument  that Congress should reclaim its Article 1 Section 8 power to regulate trade with foreign nations, Johnson told that Sioux Falls paper that (reporters’ words) “the president should maintain the authority over trade negotiations” and that (Dusty’s words) “Injecting more Congressional involvement, at least at this time, is going to inject more politics into it.”

Bjorkman blasts Johnson’s response as even more passive than our current Congressional delegation’s feckless hand-wringing in a letter to the editor making the rounds this morning:

But the response from Dusty Johnson, the Republican nominee for South Dakota’s lone House seat, was even more passive. Dusty also agrees that tariffs are bad for South Dakota. He’s just not willing to stand up for us to oppose them. He says that while “it’s important for Congress to have oversight over the executive branch’s actions,” he thinks the president should maintain authority over trade negotiations: “Injecting more congressional involvement, at least at this time, is going to inject more politics into it,” Johnson said.

It’s hard to know what oversight Dusty envisions Congress could have over a president who can impose tariffs on his own. And does Dusty really believe that when Congress exercises a constitutionally granted power it’s playing politics?

This is no time for passivity, hollow words, or hand-wringing politicians. The framers established Congress as the people’s branch of government, and it’s time for leaders of conviction to restore the constitutional checks and balances they intended. If a candidate for Congress is not willing to act on the constitutional authority the framers granted to Congress, he likely won’t be the strong independent voice South Dakota needs and deserves.

South Dakota’s rural communities may soon be in crisis if we don’t act now. Our congressional delegation — and anyone who seeks to join it — need to act as if real people’s economic lives are at stake.

Because they are [Tim Bjorkman, letter to the editor, received by Dakota Free Press 2018.07.16].

Stopping the Executive Branch from usurping a power of Congress isn’t “injecting politics”; it’s strict adherence to the Constitution… fealty to which South Dakota Republicans declare relevantly at least six times in their latest platform. Johnson is practicing the political gymnastics, contorting himself into a partisan position that excuses Congressional inaction before a reckless authoritarian Presidency, while Bjorkman is advocating the strict originalist reading of the Constitution that protects the separation of powers and the economic well-being of South Dakota farmers.

21 Comments

  1. Nick Nemec 2018-07-16 06:56

    Every person representing South Dakota in Congress or hoping to represent South Dakota in Congress must be unequivocal in their opposition to the tariffs. Removing the tariffs and reestablishing the authority of Congress “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” is job one if you want to represent South Dakota.

  2. jerry 2018-07-16 07:27

    Agreed Mr. Nemec, for far to long politicos like Johnson have been wet noodles when it comes to standing up for South Dakota and her needs. By abandoning their responsibility to do their jobs, Congress is turning us all into to failed states to become more and more like Mother Russia’s State Duma. Kind of fits Johnson to a T as his inspiration is in Finland selling the United States out even further.

  3. Dana P 2018-07-16 08:44

    Mr Bjorkman, again, is spot on. He continues to show why he is an excellent candidate.

  4. Francis Schaffer 2018-07-16 18:43

    Do members of Congress take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America? Is not acting a violation of that oath?

  5. Robin Friday 2018-07-16 23:29

    Somebody tell Dusty that’s what Congress is for, that’s why we elect people to represent us, to “inject” our voices into the conversation, or to create a conversation if there isn’t one which there wouldn’t be if Trump and Dusty’s ideas hold forth. Yeah, that’s all we need is more trump, more tariffs.

  6. Debbo 2018-07-16 23:30

    That’s an excellent question Francis.

    Dusty is indeed a passive hand-wringer. He’s probably waiting for Ms. Buttina to tell him what Putie wants. Rounds and Thune have obviously already gotten their orders.

  7. Robin Friday 2018-07-16 23:36

    Shouldn’t Mr. Johnson have learned a little bit about SD economics by now?

  8. Jason 2018-07-16 23:41

    Did you guys and gals miss the post from the South Dakota farmer in the other thread?

    There are many more than him that don’t even know about this site.

    China and the other Countries started this by having unfair tariffs.

    If you disagree with my last statement, please state your evidence.

  9. Jason 2018-07-16 23:44

    Nick,

    I “assume” you are a farmer.

    Do you think that if China doesn’t buy your soybeans than nobody will?

    Do you think people who who buying soybeans that China wasn’t will not buy from the US?

  10. Ron Wieczorek 2018-07-17 10:08

    25 years of British Free Trade have raised havoc with the American and European economy. It has bankrupted the Atlantic Alliance. Trumps policies are more like real DEMOCRATS [FDR and JFK]. If the Party had stuck with the principles of Glass-Steagall and Bretton Woods we would still have a solid economy and the Party would not be losing registered voters.

  11. jerry 2018-07-17 10:40

    25 years of constant war has results, check them out Mr. Woeczorek. Show me the links for your 25 years of British Free Trade that has wrecked the economy and I will show you Arlington National Cemetery, or several small town cemetery’s in South Dakota. You show me links and I will show you tombstones, guess which one shows more of a wreck.

    The republican congress struck down the principles of Glass-Steagall with a Democratic president having to sign. Then it was revised by Democrats only to get knocked in the head by Republicans like Comrade NOem, Comrade Rounds and the Confederate Comrade Thune.

    Bretton Woods was set because Great Britain had been bankrupted and the Pound Sterling had failed. Before Bretton Woods, the English Pound Sterling was the international currency, after that, the dollar.

    Wanna know what really happened? Look no further than trump wannabee Richard Nixon.

    “Today, Aug. 15, 2011, is the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s colossal error: severing the final link between the dollar and gold. No other single action by Nixon has had a more profound and deleterious effect on the American people. In the end, breaking the solemn promise that a dollar was worth 1/35th of an ounce of gold doomed his Presidency, and marked the beginning of the worst 40 years in American economic history.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2011/08/15/nixons-colossal-monetary-error-the-verdict-40-years-later/#303fbc1169f7

    There ya go Comrade, keep beating the broken drum of the trumponian failed state and then look around to see who the new boss is. Hint: he is shorter than trump and slightly more reptilian, with the same kind of slither like the rattlesnakes they are.

  12. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-07-17 11:25

    I don’t see anything in Ron’s, um, comment, that refutes Bjorkman’s point or excuses Johnson’s cession of Congressional Constitutional authority to the Executive Branch.

  13. Francis Schaffer 2018-07-18 14:15

    Nick Nemec,
    If Congress has the power to Lay and Collect taxes, why is the IRS part of the Treasury Department and thus the Executive Branch. Seems like that isn’t following the Constitution either. I would be much more comfortable having the members of my congressional delegation coming to me to pick up the check for my income tax, it would be a wonderful opportunity to question how the money is spent.

  14. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-07-18 19:57

    Francis, I see where your rhetorical point points (next April, Thune, Rounds, and Bjorkman should all hold local office hours for two solid weeks), but it occurs to me that the IRS is perfectly logically seated. The Legislature makes laws, the Executive Branch enforces them. The IRS is enforcement.

  15. Francis Schaffer 2018-07-19 07:33

    Cory,
    So the Constitution says Congress has the power to lay and collects taxes. Did the Constitution define the separation of powers? If not then Congress had to cede their power to collect taxes at some point, similar to ceding the power to levy tariffs. It is not rhetorical it is based upon reading the document.

  16. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-07-19 10:11

    Ah, “collect” is the key word! Fair point, Francis… but can you give me an example of any other federal agency that is operated directly by Congress, not the Executive Branch?

  17. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-07-19 10:14

    …like the U.S. Mint. The Mint does the actual coining of money, which Article 1 Section 8 empowers Congress to do, but the Mint is under Treasury, Executive Branch. Would the Mint also fall under your critique?

    Or the U.S. Patent Office, under Commerce?

  18. Warren lohf 2018-07-28 11:10

    Bjorkman is a smoking mirror, he thinks farmers want tariffs lifted but the truth is farmers want equal trade bottom line.

  19. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-07-28 13:49

    “Smoking mirror”? Not sure I get that reference, but tell us the distinction between “equal trade” and “tariffs lifted.” Wouldn’t ideally equal trade include no tariffs, in conjunction with removal of other protectionist activity? No tariffs certainly sounds like what I hear farmers saying in the news.

Comments are closed.