• 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’

......and it doesn't or else he forgot to proclaim it.
If it's anything like his AEA proclamation, I still wouldn't trust it. That one specified Tren de Aragua and then targeted MS-13 and anyone Venezuelan. I still don't understand how the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the broad brush he's using there.
 
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.
So if a court orders the President to carpet bomb NYC he’s obligated to do it?
 
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
You realize that's only if the IEEPA is used within the confines of its statute, right? That's the point we're making, which you seem to be ignoring entirely.
 
Last edited:
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
Wrong AGAIN.

Congress has the authority to TERMINATE an emergency, but the declaration is judicially reviewable.

(The IEEPA actually specifically spells out how judicial review can take place in closed quarters, etc. for matters of national security - so to claim that there is some magical "not judicially reviewable" power here regarding tariffs is just sheer absurdity on its face - why would the act be written with means to provide judicial review and maintain national security if there was NO judicial review allowed?)
 
Last edited:
You realize that's only if the IEEA is used within the confines of its statute, right? That's the point we're making, which you seem to be ignoring entirely.
No, the point you’re missing is that the Act confers sole authority to decision what circumstances constitute a national emergency through which the Executive can exercise his authorities under the Act on the President and, per the Act, those decisions are only reviewable and revocable by Congress. It’s non-justiciable.
 
The corrupt Democrats can't win at the ballot box, therefore they are attempting to impose judicial tyranny to interfere the e executive branch.
 
No, the point you’re missing is that the Act confers sole authority to decision what circumstances constitute a national emergency through which the Executive can exercise his authorities under the Act to the President and those decisions are only reviewable and revocable by Congress.
I'm not missing any point. You're missing that there is judicial review that occurs before what you are arguing can apply.
 
And....we have reached the inevitable point where this poster reaches for absurdities because their position becomes undefendable
You folks are the ones claiming it’s an easy answer because it’s an absolute. I just provided an example of why your position is trash.
 
You folks are the ones claiming it’s an easy answer because it’s an absolute. I just provided an example of why your position is trash.
By adding an example of the Judiciary telling the President to do something unlawful? The only trash I see is your example.
 
I'm not missing any point. You're missing that there is judicial review that occurs before what you are arguing can apply.
Incorrect. The law explicitly says that the President decides and only Congress can review and revoke those decisions. The President’s decisions are non-justiciable. The courts have no authority to review them because that is an authority Congress reserved for itself.
 
This isn’t a right or left issue. Presidents have been imposing and modifying tariffs since 1789. If that is suddenly unconstitutional then what is the tariff landscape?
In those times, how many of them were done under the justification of a national emergency?
 
Incorrect. The law explicitly says that the President decides and only Congress can review and revoke those decisions. The President’s decisions are non-justiciable. The courts have no authority to review them because that is an authority Congress reserved for itself.
Okay, let me spell it out for you since you are missing the point entirely. The law says that Congress is the only entity that can review the decisions under the IEEPA. The law does not say that Congress is the only entity that can determine whether the IEEPA applies to the situation. An interpretation of the Constitution and legislation determines that, and that is interpreted by the Judicial Branch. Before the IEEPA applies, it is reviewed. Only after that review, and only after that review deems the IEEPA as valid, does Congress become the authority on decisions made as part of the law.
 
So if a court orders the President to carpet bomb NYC he’s obligated to do it?
Clearly, you don’t understand the constitution or the duties of the three branches of government. Trump has a right given to him by the constitution to grant pardons and commute sentences, therefore no one can challenge that in court. He does not have the right to makes all laws, declares war, regulates interstate and foreign commerce and controls taxing and spending policies. Those are the duties of the legislative branch. The judicial branch's main duties include interpreting laws, applying them to specific cases, and determining if laws are constitutional.

They determined that trump’s tariffs are not constitutional. It is not in the president’s power based on our constitution to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Do you understand now?
 
Wrong AGAIN.

Congress has the authority to TERMINATE an emergency, but the declaration is judicially reviewable.

(The IEEPA actually specifically spells out how judicial review can take place in closed quarters, etc. for matters of national security - so to claim that there is some magical powers that are not judicially reviewable is just sheer absurdity on its face - why would the act be written with means to provide judicial review and maintain national security if there was NO judicial review allowed?)
False. The courts have no authority here. None at all. The Act transfers the non-justiciable constitutional authority of Congress to impose tariffs to the President upon the President’s determination that there exists a national emergency. The President reports to Congress alone and Congress alone reviews his decisions. Congress alone may revoke its transfer of those authorities and claw them back to itself. There is ZERO role for the judiciary under this Act.
 
Incorrect. The law explicitly says that the President decides and only Congress can review and revoke those decisions. The President’s decisions are non-justiciable. The courts have no authority to review them because that is an authority Congress reserved for itself.
The IEEPA spells out - IN THE IEEPA - how judicial review of classified information can occur.

If the actions of a POTUS under the IEEPA were “not reviewable” - as you claim - why would the act contain those provisions?


You didn’t even bother to read the IEEPA apparently before making the asinine assertion you’ve posted claiming that the acts of a POTUS under the IEEPA are not subject to judicial review.

There are VERY limited powers and actions that can be taken by a POTUS that are NOT subject to judiciary review.

Tariffs - even when declared under the IEEPA - are not one of them.
 
Okay, let me spell it out for you since you are missing the point entirely. The law says that Congress is the only entity that can review the decisions under the IEEPA. The law does not say that Congress is the only entity that can determine whether the IEEPA applies to the situation. An interpretation of the Constitution and legislation determines that, and that is interpreted by the Judicial Branch. Before the IEEPA applies, it is reviewed. Only after that review, and only after that review deems the IEEPA as valid, does Congress become the authority on decisions made as part of the law.
No. The only thing the courts can decide is if the Act itself is constitutional. It has no authority to review or revoke the President’s decisions under the Act. That power rests solely with Congress because A) It is the non-justiciable constitutional authority of Congress that is being transferred, reviewed, and/or clawed back and B) The Act does not transfer that constitutional Congressional authority to the Judiciary.
 
Wrong AGAIN.

Congress has the authority to TERMINATE an emergency, but the declaration is judicially reviewable.

(The IEEPA actually specifically spells out how judicial review can take place in closed quarters, etc. for matters of national security - so to claim that there is some magical "not judicially reviewable" power here regarding tariffs is just sheer absurdity on its face - why would the act be written with means to provide judicial review and maintain national security if there was NO judicial review allowed?)
The justification will all fall apart when the administration has to make the case on what emergency there was to mitigate in applying tariffs on most of the world's countries.
;)

The administration's been pushing the limits of existing laws and policies with the hopes the legal system won't have the bandwidth to address them all. This is essentially a test of how much a president should be able to do on his own, and there's the camp who still believe that presidents aren't kings versus those who want a unitary executive.
 
False. The courts have no authority here. None at all. The Act transfers the non-justiciable constitutional authority of Congress to impose tariffs to the President upon the President’s determination that there exists a national emergency. The President reports to Congress alone and Congress alone reviews his decisions. Congress alone may revoke its transfer of those authorities and claw them back to itself. There is ZERO role for the judiciary under this Act.
Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981) called and would like a word.
 
False. The courts have no authority here. None at all. The Act transfers the non-justiciable constitutional authority of Congress to impose tariffs to the President upon the President’s determination that there exists a national emergency. The President reports to Congress alone and Congress alone reviews his decisions. Congress alone may revoke its transfer of those authorities and claw them back to itself. There is ZERO role for the judiciary under this Act.
So, on the record ...... what do you think is going to happen.
 
The justification will all fall apart when the administration has to make the case on what emergency there was to mitigate in applying tariffs on most of the world's countries.
;)

The administration's been pushing the limits of existing laws and policies with the hopes the legal system won't have the bandwidth to address them all. This is essentially a test of how much a president should be able to do on his own, and there's the camp who still believe that presidents aren't kings versus those who want a unitary executive.
It’s almost as though SCOTUS has already ruled on cases re. the IEEPA previously…pointing to the need to scrutinize and evaluate Presidential powers and actions taken under the Act 🤷‍♀️
 
Back
Top Bottom