Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/10/2025 11:15:32 AM PDT by Poison Pill
The Supreme Court will likely agree with lower courts that ruled President Donald Trump can’t use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs, according experts surveyed by JPMorgan.
Trade and legal experts said the odds that the high court will rule against the Trump administration are 70%-80% and expect a decision by the end of the year
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The alternative is quotas (like Reagan did with Japanese Cars/Motorcycles) or outright embargoes.
The Byrds recorded "Turn! Turn! Turn!" - a song with that theme
We are closing in on year 1 of the Trump Presidency, wiping out the tariffs would blow up all the trade deals that have been negotiated and cause major harm to the economy.
The decision in this case is HUGE in many different ways.
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?
no one had a problem when Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Biden, Trump 1 used tariffs. Supreme court will allow.
Or maybe nobody mounted a legal challenge to any of them.
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.
So why when new tariffs are threatened (like today), do the equity markets go down, not up?
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.
I hope you are correct.
Scotus often decided cases such as Brown v. Board and Obergefell and others because Congress wouldn’t act.
I am not saying Presidential assertion of tariff authority is Constitutional, just that power abhors a vacuum and Congressmen ultimately only care about reelection, while Trump cares about the US and its people.
I hate Congress almost as much as I hate the legacy media.
I’m only interested in what the law says.
A branch of government allegedly not doing its job -- at least according to what a particular political faction believes it should be doing -- isn't justification for ignoring the Constitution. Any leftist could use that exact same reasoning to leave the Constitution in the dust. "Well, Congress should be passing comprehensive immigration reform, but since it isn't, the President should just permanently legalize them and give them voting rights."
- it’s what We The People demand right now.
The left thinks they are "We the People" too. So do the folks in the middle. Everyone believes they are "We the People", and could use that exact same phrase to justify ignoring the Constitution.
The truth is that the people who created this nation deliberately made it difficult to pass laws. If they wanted a President to be able to do "what was necessary" (as determined solely by him, of course), they could easily have written that. They didn't, and that isn't what states ratified. You can argue that what "We the People" want is embodied in the President, but it isn't that simple because "We the People" also elect a Congress.
If Congress doesn't want to do it, it doesn't and shouldn't happen. That - thankfully - is our system of government.
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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.