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 11/05/2025 4:24:14 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
President Donald Trump's use of sweeping tariffs faced sharp questioning at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in a case with major implications for the president's agenda and the global economy.
A majority of justices, including several conservatives, expressed doubts about the White House's justification of the import duties, which the president has said are necessary to restore America's manufacturing base and fix its trade imbalance.
The measures are being challenged by a number of small businesses and a group of states, which contend that the president has overstepped his authority in imposing the levies, which are in effect a tax.
America's top court - which has a 6-3 conservative majority - usually takes months to reach big decisions, but many expect it to move faster in this case, which is also seen as the first major test of the Trump administration's push to expand presidential power.
"And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France?" asked Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed to the court by Trump.
"I could see it with some countries but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are."
Billions of dollars in tariff payments are at stake. If the Trump administration loses, the government could have to refund some of the billions of dollars it has collected, a process that Barrett noted could become a "complete mess".
The White House, which sent Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to the hearing, has said that they will turn to other tariff authorities if the court does not rule in its favour.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.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 Founders saw tariffs as a source of tax revenue. In a way, the uneven burden of them was a major cause of the Civil War. They never foresaw them as a negotiating tactic.
BBC wet dream
President Trump says the econmy will suffer greatly. If they rule against the tariffs what option is left? That is the major part of his power when bargaining.
Free Traitor
Free Traitor
F the GOP
Congress either enacts them or doesn’t.
As the founders intended.
I don’t see the problem.
Congress was given the power to levy by design. They - stupidly, I don’t think SCOTUS will wholly strike it down but I can dream - passed a stupid bill 50 years ago to carve out *narrow and limited* options for a President to implement *targeted* tariffs.
These global tariffs stretch the definition of “emergency” beyond any meaningful meaning of the word.
This is how our Republic works. And this is what a conservative court should do: Throttle back power where it is abused.
What trade legislation authority does a President have to restrict imports?A U.S. President has significant authority under various statutes to restrict imports unilaterally, often for reasons of national security, economic protection, or enforcement of trade agreements. These powers are delegated by Congress and do not require new legislation or congressional approval in most cases. Below is a summary of the key authorities, organized by primary statute:
1. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. § 1862)
Scope: Allows the President to impose tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions on imports that threaten national security.
Process:
The Department of Commerce (typically via the Bureau of Industry and Security) investigates whether imports of a specific article threaten to impair national security.
The Secretary of Commerce submits a report to the President within 270 days.
The President has 90 days to decide on action and must notify Congress.
Examples of use:
Trump administration: 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum (2018), citing national security.
Biden administration: Retained many Section 232 tariffs but negotiated tariff-rate quotas with allies (e.g., EU, Japan, UK).
Key feature: No requirement for congressional approval; President has broad discretion.
2. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2411)
Scope: Authorizes the President (via the U.S. Trade Representative) to take action against unfair trade practices by foreign countries, including:
Violation of trade agreements.
Acts, policies, or practices that are “unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory” and burden U.S. commerce.
Actions permitted:
Impose tariffs or quotas.
Suspend trade agreement concessions.
Restrict services or intellectual property rights.
Examples:
Trump administration: Tariffs on ~$370 billion of Chinese imports (2018–2019) for IP theft and forced technology transfer.
Biden administration: Retained most Section 301 tariffs on China; added exclusions and reviews.
Process: USTR self-initiates or investigates based on petitions; President approves final action.
3. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2251) – Safeguards
Scope: Permits temporary relief (tariffs, quotas, or trade adjustment assistance) when imports cause serious injury to a domestic industry, even if no unfair practice exists.
Process:
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigates (petitioned by industry, Congress, or self-initiated).
ITC recommends relief if injury is found.
President decides whether to implement, modify, or reject the recommendation.
Examples:
Bush administration: Steel safeguards (2002).
Trump administration: Solar panels and washing machines (2018).
Note: President can reject ITC recommendations (unlike Section 232 or 301).
4. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.)
Scope: Grants the President broad authority to regulate commerce (including imports) during a declared national emergency.
Limitations: Cannot regulate personal communications, humanitarian donations, or information materials unless specifically authorized.
Examples:
Trump: Threatened tariffs on Mexico (2019) over immigration; invoked IEEPA but withdrew after agreement.
Biden: Used IEEPA to ban imports of Russian oil, gold, and other goods after Ukraine invasion (2022).
Process: President declares a national emergency (renewable annually); no congressional approval needed for initial action.
5. Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) (50 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq.)
Scope: Applies during wartime or declared emergencies; allows control over imports from hostile countries.
Current use: Largely superseded by IEEPA in peacetime but still applies to Cuba (via ongoing “national emergency” since 1962).
Example: U.S. embargo on Cuban imports.
6. Other Authorities
Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: Allows temporary tariffs (up to 15%) or quotas for 150 days to address balance-of-payments deficits (rarely used).
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930: Permits 50% ad valorem tariffs on imports from countries discriminating against U.S. commerce (obsolete; never used).
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties (Title VII of Tariff Act of 1930): Administered by Commerce and ITC; President has no direct role unless appealed via extraordinary challenge.
Both sides of politics agree with selling out American manufacturing for the benefit of Big Finance.
SCOTUS needs to stand back and let The Executive battle against the feckless Congress.
“And so is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain? France?” asked Amy Coney Barrett,
A. It’s none of your business who gets tariffed. That’s not a legal question.
B. It’s a stupid question and she’s a retard.
Of course they are by default a negotiating tactic. Just like every country threatens us with them. Did you just fall off of a coconut tree?
Why I call them Free Traitors. It fits them like a glove.
And under the Constitution, that's Congress' prerogative.
You’re right.
So let other counties gut us until we are bled out?
Sounds like a plan.
A lot of people do not realize how close we are to the financial abyss apparently.
Roberts is chomping at the bit to sabotage Trump’s presidency.
Which justices are conservative? I count only two, maybe 2.5.
Hey, Amy, dear. Either Trump does or does not have the power to impose tariffs. Whether he chooses to do it widely, steeply, narrowly, in purple, blue or green is quite irrelevant.
Stick to the core issue.
Does he or doesn’t he have the power? HOW he wields it is a political question that is none of your business.
I sure as heck hope he does have the power, because he wields it brilliantly. If it turns out he doesn’t have the power, Congress should write a bill allowing him to do exactly what he wants.
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.