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.
Correct.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.
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.
That's what he does.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.Why has a US court blocked Donald Trump’s tariffs – and can he get round it?
Challenge to president’s policies raises questions about his trade and economic planswww.theguardian.com
Wrong. The Republic would not have "been done" at all. Kamala Harris was the best choice in 2024. Voters blew it.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.
Righties will no doubt agree wholeheartedly.
Trump admin says tariffs are ‘immune from judicial scrutiny’ as it appeals order blocking levies
Trump's tariffs back on after federal appeals court halts lower court's blockbuster ruling
A federal appeals court on Thursday afternoon halted a lower court ruling which held that the Trump administration's various tariffs were unlawful and could not be enforcedlawandcrime.com
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.
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."
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?
Because of what I already said multiple times in this thread.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?
Actually Congress is the only one who can impose tariffs. There are exceptions when a President can but even that authority comes from Congress.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.
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.........Because of what I already said multiple times in this thread.
And then to embarrass yourself even further: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.htmlIf, 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.Why has a US court blocked Donald Trump’s tariffs – and can he get round it?
Challenge to president’s policies raises questions about his trade and economic planswww.theguardian.com
Centuries, huh?
Really?
Using the IEEPA? The IEEPA which was enacted in 1977 has been utilized for centuries. Ok then....
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.
Yeah we get it. You keep repeating crap......quelle surpriseBecause of what I already said multiple times in this thread.
BUT...................... why were OTHER Presidents allowed to impose tariffs, but NOT Trump??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.
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.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
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.Because of what I already said multiple times in this thread.
Who do you think interprets laws? HINT: NOT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHOh 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.
As noted -Who do you think interprets laws? HINT: NOT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Actually,What does the IEEPA say about who has the authority to decide if a national emergency exists for the purposes of the Act?
......and it doesn't or else he forgot to proclaim it.if a national emergency exists
The Legislative Branch passes laws. They do not interpret laws. The interpretation and application of those laws falls to the Judicial 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.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-91/pdf/STATUTE-91-Pg1625.pdf
are VERY limited when it comes to the POTUSnon-justiciable decisions
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.He is not obligated to abide by an unconstitutional usurpation of his authority by the court.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?