• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘Not for unelected judges to decide’

The issue isn’t blanket global tariffs. That is not a qualifier that appears anywhere in this decision. What the Court said is that it is suddenly unconstitutional for Presidents to unilaterally impose or modify tariffs - a practice Presidents have engaged in for centuries.

Centuries, huh?
Really?

Using the IEEPA? The IEEPA which was enacted in 1977 has been utilized for centuries. Ok then....





The only claimants EVER using "national interest" under the IEEPA were Nixon and Trump.

Biden left some of Trump 1.0 tariffs in place, but negotiated away from them.
 
Not true. That's where your argument, weak as it is, falls apart. No President has imposed tariffs without citing the proper legislative authority to do so.
Correct.

MOST tariffs have been levied by CONGRESS and/or under Congressional authorization/already existing tariff and trade legislation.

POTUS initiated tariffs have been few and far between in the history of the US. More in recent history (since the 70's) but even Reagan, Bush, Obama, etc. all cited actual TRADE acts when invoking tariffs.

The ONLY two POTUS that have utilized the IEEPA and "national security/emergency" - Nixon and Trump.


Trump's tariffs have been shot down because he based them on a false "emergency".

He needs to work with Congress to pass ACTUAL trade/tariff legislation or abide by prior trade/tariff legislation.

The executive doesn't write American law - he FOLLOWS it.
 
The President’s obligation to uphold the constitution trumps the desire of a court to crown itself king. The President can absolutely ignore an unconstitutional court order and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Suggest you actually read the Constitution.
 
How ironic that YOU make those accusations and expect the rest of us to dispute your claims when you gave us ZERO legal analysis, only repeating the lame old line "Others have imposed tariffs, so why they going after Trump?"
If, however, and as I suspect, you will not delve deeper into the nuances and just keep crying "why Trump", I don't think ANY of us owe you an explanation if you are too lazy to look up the difference.
That's what he does.
 
Centuries, huh?
Really?

Using the IEEPA? The IEEPA which was enacted in 1977 has been utilized for centuries. Ok then....
rolling-on-the-floor-laughing_1f923.webp
Thanks for catching that, I missed it. Some people in such a hurry to post their rebuttals they end up looking silly.
 
No, the Republic would have been done if the Democrats had managed to gaslight the public into electing that mentally incapacitated husk so it could install a shadow government in the White House. Pushing back on the courts is not a phenomenon new or unique to Donald Trump. That fact doesn't change just because the left has recently decided to clutch its pearls over it.
Wrong. The Republic would not have "been done" at all. Kamala Harris was the best choice in 2024. Voters blew it.

If the USA can survive Dysfunctional Donald it can survive anything. He is clearly the worst president ever by far with nobody else even being close. This has nothing to do with whatever disdain you are expressing about the left.
 
Righties will no doubt agree wholeheartedly.

Trump admin says tariffs are ‘immune from judicial scrutiny’ as it appeals order blocking levies​




I was thinking about what line of defense Righties will use to back Trump's assertions. One of them will no doubt be about activist judges. Except.......



Oh no, Trump picked an activist judge who has gone woke and suffers TDS. :oops:

This is hilarious..."delicate diplomatic efforts"! :LOL: All he's done is dictate terms and bully. And then back down. And then lie about waiting because "they're coming to me to negotiate." Mostly lies...go 🌮 go!

“It is critical, for the country’s national security and the President’s conduct of ongoing, delicate diplomatic efforts, that the Court stay its judgment,” attorneys with the DOJ’s Civil Division wrote in the 17-page motion for a stay. “The harm to the conduct of foreign affairs from the relief ordered by the Court could not be greater.” link
He's done nothing but bully, it's all he knows, and he has no backup plans.
 
Your right. it's a legal and Constitutional issue. The Trump administration used a very specific law as justification for his across the board tariffs. The court acknowledged that there are areas under the law, like national security, where a President has the right to impose tariffs. An across the board tariff of 10% based on trade deficit concerns isn't one of them.


"The Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to ‘lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,’ and to ‘regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,’" the court opined. "The question in the two cases before the court is whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 ("IEEPA") delegates these powers to the President in the form of authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world. The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the court continued.

""The court holds for the foregoing reasons that IEEPA does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory, or Trafficking Tariff Orders. The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs," the panel wrote. "The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders."

This is it right here, and it applies to many of his EOs:
"...the panel wrote. "The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders."" link

They make shit up, overstate concerns, make a long reach for relevance, and try to sell it as national security or other "emergencies."

Tough shit 🌮!
 
Last edited:
As I’ve clearly pointed out, Presidents have been imposing and modifying tariffs without any legislative directive for most of this country’s history. So, neither you nor the court have explained why it’s suddenly unconstitutional or answered what I asked - what is the tariff landscape if what Presidents have been doing for the last few centuries is unconstitutional?

The decision explains why. There are conditions and the court did not find his emergency claims were valid. If you want to object...address those specifics in the decision...why should we reiterate when you can prove yourself by directly arguing the court decision...which explains exactly what you asked for?
 
The decision explains why. There are conditions and the court did not find his emergency claims were valid. If you want to object...address those specifics in the decision...why should we reiterate when you can prove yourself by directly arguing the court decision...which explains exactly what you asked for?
Because of what I already said multiple times in this thread.
 
I have no idea. What were they before Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc etc?

I don’t see a satisfactory reason cited by the panel for why they think this is suddenly unconstitutional. Courts have no constitutional authority in tariff decisions.
Actually Congress is the only one who can impose tariffs. There are exceptions when a President can but even that authority comes from Congress.

In the United States, the authority to impose tariffs generally rests with Congress. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises". While this is the foundational authority, Congress can delegate some of this power to the executive branch through legislation, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
 
Because of what I already said multiple times in this thread.
Except you said nothing. There was NO legal argument. All you did was whine and moan about the tariffs imposed by previous presidents without even doing the work of checking WHY the difference, even when I did some of the work for you.........
How ironic that YOU make those accusations and expect the rest of us to dispute your claims when you gave us ZERO legal analysis, only repeating the lame old line "Others have imposed tariffs, so why they going after Trump?"
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/06/how-the-us-has-used-tariffs-through-history-and-why-trump-is-different.html If, however, and as I suspect, you will not delve deeper into the nuances and just keep crying "why Trump", I don't think ANY of us owe you an explanation if you are too lazy to look up the difference.
And then to embarrass yourself even further:

Centuries, huh?
Really?


Using the IEEPA? The IEEPA which was enacted in 1977 has been utilized for centuries. Ok then....
rolling-on-the-floor-laughing_1f923.webp
This is it right here, and it applies to many of his EOs:
"...the panel wrote. "The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders."" link
 
Because of what I already said multiple times in this thread.

So you cant directly argue the decision and choose to remain refuted (by the decision itself) (y)

Put up or ...? But stop churning baseless objections over and over.
 
Actually Congress is the only one who can impose tariffs. There are exceptions when a President can but even that authority comes from Congress.

In the United States, the authority to impose tariffs generally rests with Congress. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises". While this is the foundational authority, Congress can delegate some of this power to the executive branch through legislation, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
BUT...................... why were OTHER Presidents allowed to impose tariffs, but NOT Trump??

1748542953269.webp
 
Except you said nothing. There was NO legal argument. All you did was whine and moan about the tariffs imposed by previous presidents without even doing the work of checking WHY the difference, even when I did some of the work for you.........

And then to embarrass yourself even further:


View attachment 67572132
Oh yes, pardon me for expecting you folks to know things. What does the IEEPA say about who has the authority to decide if a national emergency exists for the purposes of the Act? HINT: NOT THE COURTS.

“…declared by the President..”

“…if the President declares…”

“…if the President determines…”

Those are non-justiciable decisions. Under the Act, the President does not answer to the courts. He answers to Congress.

 
Because of what I already said multiple times in this thread.
Why do you, and other Trump supporters, continue to believe that repeating fallacies somehow validates them? It just means you've said the same fallacies multiple times. That doesn't change the fact that they are still fallacies.
 
Oh yes, pardon me for expecting you folks to know things. What does the IEEPA say about who has the authority to decide if a national emergency exists for the purposes of the Act? HINT: NOT THE COURTS.
Who do you think interprets laws? HINT: NOT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
 
Who do you think interprets laws? HINT: NOT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
As noted -

“…declared by the President..”

“…if the President declares…”

“…if the President determines…”

Those are non-justiciable decisions. Under the Act, the President does not answer to the courts for his decisions. He answers to Congress.

“…transmit to the Congress…”

“…shall report to the Congress…”

“…authorities described may not continue to be exercised under this section if the national emergency is terminated by Congress...”


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1625.pdf
 
Last edited:
What does the IEEPA say about who has the authority to decide if a national emergency exists for the purposes of the Act?
Actually,

The IEEPA says:

The President must make a formal declaration of national emergency under the National Emergencies Act (NEA) (50 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.)

Courts CAN determine whether the formal declaration of a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act is valid AND whether the emergency powers invoked (e.g., IEEPA.) are being used within the scope authorized by law.

You really are not doing very well with this.
 
As noted -

“…declared by the President..”

“…if the President declares…”

“…if the President determines…”

Those are non-justiciable decisions. Under the Act, the President does not answer to the courts for his decisions. He answers to Congress.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1625.pdf
The Legislative Branch passes laws. They do not interpret laws. The interpretation and application of those laws falls to the Judicial Branch.

While the President has the authority to declare a national emergency, that doesn’t mean courts have no role in reviewing it. The Judiciary interprets whether the declaration aligns with existing laws and constitutional limits. Even under the IEEPA, courts can rule on whether the President’s actions comply with statutory requirements, especially if challenged on grounds like overreach, improper justification, or constitutional violations.
 
non-justiciable decisions
are VERY limited when it comes to the POTUS

They are typically
Pardons
National Security Classifications
Diplomacy related decisions


Tariffs are not one of them.
 
He is not obligated to abide by an unconstitutional usurpation of his authority by the court.
Yeah, he is. Even though he kept his hand off the Bible. It’s not the Executive branch’s call, there is a procedure to follow.
 
are VERY limited when it comes to the POTUS

They are typically
Pardons
National Security Classifications
Diplomacy related decisions


Tariffs are not one of them.
False. Per the IEEA - Congress is the only entity with the authority to review and terminate the authorities invoked by the President under this Act.

“…transmit to the Congress…”

“…shall report to the Congress…”

“…authorities described may not continue to be exercised under this section if the national emergency is terminated by Congress...”


https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1625.pdf

The Courts have ZERO constitutional authority to decide if a national emergency exists for this purpose or any other.
 
Back
Top Bottom