Experts.
Hillary had a 96% chance of winning in 2016.
Why bother with elections when all this time we could have saved the trouble and just appointed judges to run everything?
Lol, who exactly is charge of trade?
Lol, who exactly is charge of trade?
If the Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s Tariffs it will deal a huge major hole in Trump’s Economic agenda.
But I absolutely agree that the tariffs - specifically the ones implemented pursuant to the IEEPA - will be struck down as not authorized under that law. Because the Constitution assigns to Congress specifically the power to implement taxes, duties and tariffs, they can't be delegated to the President unless the delegation is clear. And in this case, none of those things are even mentioned in the IEEPA, so there isn't a clear delegation of Congress' authority to implement tariffs.
He'll lose, as he should. And that isn't a judgment as to whether the tariffs themselves are good policy. It's just a judgment that the President lacks the authority to impose them unilaterally under the IEEPA.
Nope.
if the Supreme court pulls back Tariff ability, prepare for a market crash.
The plain text of the U.S. Constitution makes it very clear that taxation is a power of Congress, not the President.
Then just who IS in charge of taxing the countries who are taxing us?
It’s extremely difficult to imagine the band of self dealing thieves that get to Congress actually trying to protect Main Street USA from the globalists.
Ok, sure. Then does the SC have the ability to stop other countries from placing tariffs on us?
If not they have no say here.
He overstepped by trying to use them as sanctions beyond the emergency claim.
My hope is that the ‘Premes will slap that down but allow his tariffs for national security and economic reasons.
Another laughable trope from a dead magazine.
Former Perts.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a declared emergency.
Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency power to the President by statute. TWEA was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became the central means to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S. companies, and impose tariffs on all imports into the United States.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618
“In 1971, after President Nixon suspended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, he made use of Section 5(b) of TWEA to declare a state of emergency and place a 10% ad valorem supplemental duty on all dutiable goods entering the United States.”
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618
IEEPA vs Section 232 for Imposing Tariffs in Response to a National Security Threat
While a President could likely use IEEPA to impose additional tariffs on imported goods as President Nixon did under TWEA, no President has done so. Instead, Presidents have turned to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 in cases of purported emergency. Section 232 provides that if the Secretary of Commerce “finds that an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security,” then the President may take action to adjust the imports such that they will no longer impair national security. While the use of Section 232 requires findings by the Secretary of Commerce, the restrictions and reporting requirements of the NEA do not apply. For that reason, Section 232 may be an attractive source of presidential authority for imposing additional tariffs for national security purposes. Using this authority, President Donald J. Trump applied additional duties on steel and aluminum in March 2018.
However, IEEPA is not subject to the same procedural restraints as Section 232. As no investigation is required, IEEPA authorities can be invoked at any time in response to a national emergency based on an “unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.” As such, IEEPA may be a source of authority for the President to impose a tariff quickly. On May 30, 2019, President Trump announced his intention to use IEEPA to impose and gradually increase a 5% tariff on all goods imported from Mexico until “the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico.” The tariffs were scheduled to be implemented on June 10, 2019, with 5% increases to take effect at the beginning of each subsequent month. On June 7, 2019, President Trump announced that that “The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. [on June 10], against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended.”
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act §201(a)(1)
(1993) “The President may proclaim—(A) such modifications or continuation of any duty, (B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or (C) such additional duties, as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out or apply [specified] articles ... of the Agreement.”
“Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
§103(a) “Whenever the President determines that one or more existing duties or other import restrictions of any foreign country or the United States are unduly burdening and restricting the foreign trade of the United States and that the purposes, policies, priorities, and objectives of this chapter will be promoted thereby, the President ... may ... proclaim—(i) such modification or continuance of any existing duty, (ii) such continuance of existing duty-free or excise treatment, or (iii) such additional duties, as the President determines to be required or appropriate to carry out any such trade agreement.... The President shall notify Congress of the President’s intention to enter into an agreement under this subsection.” This authority is subject to the following restrictions: “No proclamation may be made under paragraph (1) that—(A) reduces any rate of duty (other than a rate of duty that does not exceed 5 percent ad valorem on June 29, 2015) to a rate of duty which is less than 50 percent of the rate of such duty that applies on June 29, 2015; (B) reduces the rate of duty below that applicable”
“In Cornet Stores v. Morton, a case involving a challenge to a presidential proclamation that imposed a 10% surcharge duty on certain imported merchandise in light of a declared national emergency, the plaintiffs sought recovery of the import surcharges they had paid, relying on the jurisdictional provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the matter, finding it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Court (Customs Court), which has since been replaced at the trial level by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).”
“Cornet Stores v. Morton, 632 F.2d 96, 97 (9th Cir. 1980).”
In 1928, a similar challenge was brought in the Customs Court in J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States. In Hampton, an importer challenged an increase in duties on certain imported goods as a result of a presidential proclamation issued under Section 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which provides:
[W]henever the President, upon investigation of the differences in costs of production of articles wholly or in part the growth or product of the United States and of like or similar articles wholly or in part the growth or product of competing foreign countries, shall find it thereby shown that the duties fixed in this act do not equalize the said differences in costs of production in the United States and the principal competing country he shall, by such investigation, ascertain said differences and determine and proclaim the changes in classifications or increases or decreases in any rate of duty provided in this act shown by said ascertained differences in such costs of production necessary to equalize the same.”
There may be more:
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44707