Posted on 11/07/2025 10:40:14 AM PST by SeekAndFind
“ Presidents have typically used the law to impose financial sanctions on foreign governments and individuals, including asset seizures, but no president other than Trump has cited it as a basis for imposing tariffs. And nowhere in the text of the statute is the word tariff used.”
Doesn’t say he can’t.
RE: Doesn’t say he can’t.
Doesn’t say he CAN either. Therefore, the SCOTUS has to decide what SILENCE in the law means.
Why not just give the power to Tariff to the judiciary, they want to run the whole government anyway?
Drop the filibuster and pass a law in Congress making the issue moot. I support Trump’s intention, but taxation by Presidential decree is both lazy and dangerous.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Of course POTUS can use tariffs. Like Kavanaugh said embargo yes but tariff no? Preposterous.
It’s not taxation. It’s an import duty. Ever read the USC?
He got elected in 2016 and 2000? I thought someone else was elected in 2000.
Tariff has a hard battle. Thinking the liberal judges will vote against Trump because orange man bad. So he needs the conservative judges on side.
I have mixed feelings on this.
The economic impact is a real thing but not the most important.
It’s the leverage it gives the president in international negotiations that’s most important. We have seen how Trump has wheeled American power through tariffs very effectively to end wars and build long term world stability.
The US congress is completely ill-suited for such a endeavor. They can’t even pass a budget.
Not sure how to fix this, perhaps congress will need to sigh off on these agreements. But to strip the president of this ability will only serve to weaken American power in the world.
I think they will say that he can’t arbitrary propose the any more.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…This is a Congressional power, not a Presidential one. Do it, but do it the right way.
The problem is simply the IEEPA tariffs - the brute force, global, all-encompassing tariffs.
THAT is simply a bridge too far.
Individual, targeted tariffs? That’s fine.
But - and I will continue to argue and an actual believer in the constitution is clear: General tax/tariff levies belong to Congress, not the President.
Neil Gorsuch asked it perfectly: Are you saying the next President could declare a “Climate Emergency” and do whatever he wants with tariffs?
This issue could bring on the THREE C)-EQUAL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT showdown we need to have. Trump can just say, “Thank you for your opinion and the House (Not the unreliable Senate) where taxation bills are written into law - will vote all of the tariffs back into place.
The Supreme Court will feign upset and consternation but they will be glad to slither away while they still have some power.
Is this dangerous? Absolutely but we can’t allow the Supreme Court to make the Constitution into a suicide pact.
Would SCOTUS tie the hands of future presidents with a short sighted stupid anti Trump decision? This is really f’d up. Drop this silly case. It has no merit.
100%.
I do not expect they will, but the IEEPA is bad law and I wish/hope SCOTUS would strike it down. I don’t expect they will, but I do hope they put limits on it.
The detrimental economic impact is on the exporting nation. The impact here is tiny mostly beneficial promoting industry here and raising revenue.
The fix is for SCOTUS to rule in favor of Trump.
Ever read the Trade Act of 74 or the Emergency trade act in dispute now? Congress has given authority. You FAIL.
Globalist puke. Your anti American bent is showing.
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.