Libertarian supporters of so-called “free trade” want no tariffs on our end, but are just fine with tariffs on other countries’ end. Trump is causing other countries to lower some of their tariffs and import restrictions on American goods, bringing us closer to real free trade.
What is their standing to bring suit?
Libertarians like open borders and no tariffs (see Rand Paul).
So it is not surprising.
If they prevail, I guess, it would be on Congress to set tariffs?
Good luck with that!
President Trump is taking bold action to hold Mexico, Canada, and China accountable to their promises of halting illegal immigration and stopping poisonous fentanyl and other drugs from flowing into our country.
The orders make clear that the flow of contraband drugs like fentanyl to the United States, through illicit distribution networks, has created a national emergency, including a public health crisis.
Chinese officials have failed to take the actions necessary to stem the flow of precursor chemicals to known criminal cartels and shut down money laundering by transnational criminal organizations.
In addition, the Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico. The government of Mexico has afforded safe havens for the cartels to engage in the manufacturing and transportation of dangerous narcotics, which collectively have led to the overdose deaths of hundreds of thousands of American victims. This alliance endangers the national security of the United States, and we must eradicate the influence of these dangerous cartels.
There is also a growing presence of Mexican cartels operating fentanyl and nitazene synthesis labs in Canada. A recent study recognized Canada’s heightened domestic production of fentanyl, and its growing footprint within international narcotics distribution.
“Fentanyl is the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 49.”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/file/1318011/dl
Another Bolshevik, Jeffrey Schwab.
Historically, Congress set tariffs and maintained tight control over this power. However, over time, particularly after the Great Depression, there was a shift towards delegating some authority to the executive branch. This began with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, allowing the President to negotiate trade agreements without separate congressional approval each time.
Later acts, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, further evolved this delegated authority. These allowed the President to act on national security concerns through tariffs or respond to unfair foreign trade practices.
However, this delegation is not unchecked. For instance, Section 232 of the 1962 Act enables the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, but this is bounded by specific findings and processes.
The historical evolution of tariff authority delegation reflects the adaptability of our constitutional framework. The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 marked a pivotal shift, empowering the executive branch to negotiate trade arrangements with other nations. This was not an abandonment of congressional authority but a pragmatic adaptation to enable quick responses to rapid changes in international trade markets.
In United States v. Belmont (1937), the Court upheld the executive’s ability to make unilateral agreements in particular circumstances, confirming that the President had limited latitude to act independently of Congress, yet within the boundaries defined by existing legislation and constitutional principles.
The Steel Seizure Case (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952) provides an important counterpoint to unfettered executive power. The Court invalidated President Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills during the Korean War without explicit congressional authority, emphasizing that the President cannot unilaterally take over domestic industries. Justice Robert Jackson’s influential concurrence laid out a framework assessing executive power based on congressional backing.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Enables the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, following a thorough investigation.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Allows the President to impose retaliatory tariffs to counteract unfair foreign trade practices.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA): Grants the President authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies involving foreign threats, requiring a formal declaration.
These powers are not absolute. The Supreme Court has consistently underscored the need for an “intelligible principle” guiding the exercise of any delegated authority. This judicial oversight ensures that the President’s tariff-related powers align with congressional intent and constitutional mandates.
While the President possesses significant authority to impose tariffs under certain conditions, this power is framed by statutory directives and constitutional principles that uphold the balance of powers. The legislative branch retains its critical oversight role, ensuring that tariffs are used judiciously in accordance with national interests and the rule of law.
https://www.usconstitution.net/executive-tariff-authority/
When Trump shows that the country would be bankrupt without tariffs, any reasonable person should support him.
Between balancing fair trade, protecting our manufacturing jobs, providing for our self defense, and the need for the revenue, it’s a no brainer.
Just look at what China did with masks and medical supplies as soon as they knew Covid was arriving.
I sense Rand Paul here.
Obviously not!
Where in the Constitution is this authority granted?
Where in the Constitution is the judiciary granted greater authority and power than the President or the Congress?
Where in the Constitution is the judiciary elevated above the President or the Congress?
Where in the Constitution is the judiciary granted the authority to nullify acts of the President or the Congress?
All this suing is really suing the United States not Trump ,LOL
This company should buy more US wine and stop complaining
President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency
Reciprocal tariffs are a big part of why Americans voted for President Trump—it was a cornerstone of his campaign from the start.
Everyone knew he’d push for them once he got back in office; it’s exactly what he promised, and it’s a key reason he won the election.
If the U.S. wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem.
U.S. companies, according to internal estimates, pay over $200 billion per year in value-added taxes (VAT) to foreign governments—a “double-whammy” on U.S. companies who pay the tax at the European border
The United States imposes a 2.5% tariff on passenger vehicle imports (with internal combustion engines), while the European Union (10%) and India (70%) impose much higher duties on the same product.
The UK maintains non-science-based standards that severely restrict U.S. exports of safe, high-quality beef and poultry products.
Argentina has banned imports of U.S. live cattle since 2002 due to unsubstantiated concerns regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
For decades, South Africa has imposed animal health restrictions that are not scientifically justified on U.S. pork products, permitting a very limited list of U.S. pork exports to enter South Africa. South Africa also heavily restricts U.S. poultry exports through high tariffs, anti-dumping duties, and unjustified animal health restrictions. These barriers have contributed to a 78% decline in U.S. poultry exports to South Africa, from $89 million in 2019 to $19 million 2024.
The United States has one of the lowest simple average most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates in the world at 3.3%, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2%), China (7.5%), the European Union (5%), India (17%), and Vietnam (9.4%) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher.
This imbalance has fueled a large and persistent trade deficit in both industrial and agricultural goods, led to offshoring of our manufacturing base, empowered non-market economies like China, and hurt America’s middle class and small towns.
This Wine importer needs an investigation plus it should STOP WHINING
The outcome depends on the Federal Judge they shopped for.
The Drunken U.S. Court of International Trade will go against Trump you can bet on that ,LOL
Aren’t tariffs imposed on the nation?
It is up to the nation to deal with the internal costs such as taxes, charge-backs and price increases.
I don’t see where VOS Selections has standing.
They aren’t a nation unto themselves.
“The lawsuit argues that the Administration’s justification— a trade deficit in goods—is neither an emergency nor an unusual or extraordinary threat. Trade deficits have existed for decades, and do not constitute a national emergency or threat to security.”
Trade deficits have to be made up for by injecting money into the economy. This is normally done by deficit spending as there is a desire to get something for the injected money.
Credit card companies put balance limits on credit cards.
Mortgage companies put limits on the amount people can get a mortgage for based on their income and credit history.
The EU has long had a 60% of GDP cap on member nation national debt.
There are many emergencies on the nation’s highways every day. Most don’t result in deformed metal. The driver should apply the brakes (and turn the steering wheel) to avoid the crash. President Trump is in the drivers’ seat.
It should be borne in mind that a 10% devaluation is economically the same as a 10% tariff as far as importers are concerned. Devaluations of more than 10% are possible.
“50 years ago this weekend the Government announced that the pound would be devalued by 14%. This decision – previously politically unthinkable – was taken after fending off a number of earlier currency crises.”
“Chancellor James Callaghan released a statement at 9.30pm on Saturday 18 November 1967 stating that the Government had decided to lower the exchange rate from $2.80 to $2.40 per £1, a 14.3% change. Interest rates were raised from 6.5% to 8.0%, cuts to defence budget announced, and banks and the stock exchanges would be closed on Monday.”
“Prime Minister Harold Wilson gave an address on TV and radio to the nation....He railed at the “successive waves of speculation against sterling”, and said no international loan could be agreed given the conditions on economic policy that may be attached to them.”
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pound-in-your-pocket-devaluation-50-years-on/
Remember a 14% devaluation has a greater impact than a tariff increase to 10%.
Watch Season 3 of “The Crown” to see why trade deficits matter.
“The Chilean standard VAT rate is 19.0%, which is close to the OECD average.”
OECD via google
You idiots! Cannot you see that the tariffs are negotiating TOOLS???
Libertarians for all intents and purposes are just democrats. Everything they support help the democrat agenda and hurst America...