‘Not for unelected judges to decide’

[Ikari]

That is not for the judiciary to assess and I’ve cited multiple times in this thread.

It's exactly for the judiciary to assess. Otherwise, there's no check on the President's power (which is the goal of MAGA).

 

[Napoleon]

It's exactly for the judiciary to assess. Otherwise, there's no check on the President's power (which is the goal of MAGA).

Appeals court reinstates Trump's tariffs for now after ruling blocking them

Federal court determined that President Trump doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, dealing a sweeping blow to his main weapon in his trade war.

abcnews.go.com

I TOLD ALL OF YOU SO.

 

[Xilnik]

See what I already posted about that.

I have. You continue to reiterate the same points that do not hold up to legal rulings. Repeating something that is untrue over and over again does not change that it is untrue. Courts do not evaluate whether a President’s use of IEEPA is effective in achieving policy goals, but they do have the authority to assess whether executive actions exceed statutory or constitutional limits.

 

[Napoleon]

I have. You continue to reiterate the same points that do not hold up to legal rulings. Repeating something that is untrue over and over again does not change that it is untrue. Courts do not evaluate whether a President’s use of IEEPA is effective in achieving policy goals, but they do have the authority to assess whether executive actions exceed statutory or constitutional limits.

See post 102. /End thread.

 

[Ikari]

Appeals court reinstates Trump's tariffs for now after ruling blocking them

Federal court determined that President Trump doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, dealing a sweeping blow to his main weapon in his trade war.

abcnews.go.com

I TOLD ALL OF YOU SO.

Dumb argument. The court didn't strike the decision. They paused it while it's in review.

lol

 

[Xilnik]

Appeals court reinstates Trump's tariffs for now after ruling blocking them

Federal court determined that President Trump doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, dealing a sweeping blow to his main weapon in his trade war.

abcnews.go.com

I TOLD ALL OF YOU SO.

You told us they don't have the authority and the ruling would be struck down. A delay on the ruling while reviewing the ruling is not the same thing as striking it down.

See post 102. /End thread.

Did you even read your own link?

 

[Napoleon]

You told us they don't have the authority and the ruling would be struck down. A delay on the ruling while reviewing the ruling is not the same thing as striking it down.

Yes, and it will be. This is just the first step and a strong indication the Court of Appeals believes Trump has the winning argument.

 

[NolanVoyd]

That is not for the judiciary to assess and I’ve cited multiple times in this thread.

Of course that is for the judiciary to decide.

 

[Lursa]

The court has no authority to review the Presidents decision’s under those authorities at all and certainly not on the grounds of their effectiveness.

Citation to support that. That's just "na huh". You've had actual sources provided to you saying otherwise. Who are the "authorities" in the bolded text? You are just making crap up. And where is 'effectiveness' mentioned? I didnt.

Put up or ...? Post #?

 

[Callen]

It's exactly for the judiciary to assess. Otherwise, there's no check on the President's power (which is the goal of MAGA).

Only as long as here is a MAGA President. This is one very dangerous and slippery slope.

 

[Xilnik]

Yes, and it will be. This is just the first step and a strong indication the Court of Appeals believes Trump has the winning argument.

That's not how the appeals process works...The court is reviewing the case before deciding whether to uphold or reverse the lower court’s decision. The final outcome will depend on the full appeals process, and it’s possible the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

 

[Callen]

Appeals court reinstates Trump's tariffs for now after ruling blocking them

Federal court determined that President Trump doesn't have the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs, dealing a sweeping blow to his main weapon in his trade war.

abcnews.go.com

I TOLD ALL OF YOU SO.

Don't be ridiculous. They just paused it and asked for written briefs. It's how the system works

 

[Napoleon]

Citation to support that. That's just "na huh". You've had actual sources provided to you saying otherwise. Who are the "authorities" in the bolded text? You are just making crap up. And where is 'effectiveness' mentioned? I didnt.

Put up or ...? Post #?

I’ve done that multiple times in this thread. Read it.

 

[Ikari]

Only as long as here is a MAGA President. This is one very dangerous and slippery slope.

Well the hope of MAGA is to end the Presidency and establish the Dear Leader. Look to China and NK for the sort of government MAGA wants.

 

[NWRatCon]

Here is the basic authority when the IEEPA is invoked - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1701


So Trump invoked the IEEPA in accordance with the law as it is written.

The president's authority under the act is in this section. Among those granted authorities is -

Tariffs would certainly fall within that authority.

The next section requires the president to "consult with" congress. Please note that he has to consult with congress, not the judiciary. It also doesn't require that congress approve any actions taken, just that they be consulted.

The penalties section provides that -

One might ask if the judges in this decision violated this penalties provision.

Nope. Geez you guys are silly. Can't read, either. Please cite the provision that says "tariff". We'll wait. (Actually, we won't.)

 

[Lursa]

I’ve done that multiple times in this thread. Read it.

Citation to support that. That's just "na huh". You've had actual sources provided to you saying otherwise. Who are the "authorities" in the bolded text? You are just making crap up. And where is 'effectiveness' mentioned? I didnt.

Put up or ...? Post #?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

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.

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

THREE JUDGES, those who understand the law and the constitution better than you do, clearly have a different interpretation. However, you won't be able to leave it there, can't just say "well, this is what I believe", but you will go on and on and on and on and on and on for page after page after page insisting we all see things YOUR WAY.

I doubt I will be proven wrong.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

THREE JUDGES, those who understand the law and the constitution better than you do, clearly have a different interpretation. However, you won't be able to leave it there, can't just say "well, this is what I believe", but you will go on and on and on and on and on and on for page after page after page insisting we all see things YOUR WAY.

As noted -

“…declared by the President..”

“…if the President declares…”

“…if the President determines…”

“…transmit to the Congress…”

“…shall report to the Congress…”

So if a court orders the President to carpet bomb NYC he’s obligated to do it?

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.

You folks are the ones claiming it’s an easy answer because it’s an absolute

Incorrect. The law explicitly says that the President decides and only Congress can review and revoke those decisions.

False. The courts have no authority here.

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.

What is going to happen is that, once again, SCOTUS will put the lower courts in their place.

Please do. I’m right 99% of the time in my SCOTUS predictions

The court has no authority to review the Presidents decision’s under those authorities at all and certainly not on the grounds of their effectiveness.

What was the national emergency that prompted Biden to unilaterally and significantly increase the tariffs on Canadian lumber?

Your willingness to comply with Trump’s constitutional exercise of his authority under the IEEPA is surplus to requirements.

See what I already posted about that.

That is not for the judiciary to assess and I’ve cited multiple times in this thread.

I TOLD ALL OF YOU SO.

Oh, you TOLD us, did you? We better listen or you might hit us with all CAPS.

See post 102. /End thread.

You have the authority to end threads???

Yes, and it will be. This is just the first step and a strong indication the Court of Appeals believes Trump has the winning argument.

I’ve done that multiple times in this thread. Read it.

But, we need you to do it again, because we still don't "get it."

I doubt I will be proven wrong.

 

[Lutherf]

Nope. Geez you guys are silly. Can't read, either. Please cite the provision that says "tariff". We'll wait. (Actually, we won't.)

Oh FFS.

A tariff falls squarely into regulating any transaction in foreign exchange.

 

[Xilnik]

Oh FFS.

A tariff falls squarely into regulating any transaction in foreign exchange.

That's the piece that is up for debate among the courts currently. While your point is technically true, IEEPA has not been used for tariffs historically. Even if they do fall under that umbrella, the broad scope of the tariffs made by this administration may disqualify them from the requirements for IEEPA to apply. It will also obviously depend on what they rule as far as who has authority over tariffs in that regard between the Executive and Legislative Branches.

 

[mike2810]

What was the national emergency that prompted Biden to unilaterally and significantly increase the tariffs on Canadian lumber?

- President Biden did not declare a national emergency when dealing with Canadian lumber.

From a Google query:

• Softwood Lumber Dispute: The US and Canada have a long-standing dispute over softwood lumber trade, with the US lumber industry claiming that Canadian lumber is unfairly subsidized.
• Tariffs: The US has imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports to offset these alleged subsidies. In August 2024, the US nearly doubled the tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber, increasing them to 14.54%.
• No National Emergency Declaration: Although the situation has led to trade tensions and concerns about lumber prices in the US, there's no record of President Biden declaring a national emergency related to Canadian lumber.
• Section 232 Investigation: In March 2025, the Biden administration initiated a Section 232 investigation into whether lumber imports threaten US national security. This investigation could potentially lead to further trade actions, including tariffs or quotas, but it's not a national emergency declaration.

While President Trump did not specifically declare a national emergency solely on Canadian lumber, he did take several actions related to lumber and trade that significantly impacted the Canadian softwood lumber industry:
1. National Security Investigation & Potential Tariffs:

• In March 2025, President Trump directed the Commerce Department to investigate whether lumber imports pose a national security threat.
• This investigation, conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, could lead to tariffs on lumber imports if a threat is found.
• The National Association of Home Builders | NAHB notes that the investigation could result in additional tariffs by the end of 2025.

2. Tariffs on Canadian Goods:

• President Trump imposed a 25% tariff on various Canadian goods, including softwood lumber, in February 2025, according to the National Association of Home Builders | NAHB.
• These tariffs were intended to address trade imbalances and protect domestic industries.
• However, these tariffs were later paused for goods covered under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement.

3. Lumber Included in "Reciprocal" Tariffs:

• In April 2025, President Trump declared a national emergency related to trade deficits and imposed "reciprocal" tariffs on countries with large trade deficits with the US.
• While Canada was initially exempted from the higher reciprocal tariffs, a 10% baseline tariff applied to all countries, including Canada, which affected lumber imports.

In summary: Although a specific national emergency declaration focused solely on Canadian lumber didn't occur, President Trump initiated actions (national security investigation and broader tariffs) that significantly impacted the Canadian lumber industry and trade relations.
In Conclusion: While the Biden administration has taken action to address the softwood lumber dispute, it has not declared a national emergency.

Noted. You did not address on why President Trump is subsidizing certain US Ag exports while complaining about Canada and lumber imports.

 

[Napoleon]

- President Biden did not declare a national emergency when dealing with Canadian lumber.

From a Google query:

• Softwood Lumber Dispute: The US and Canada have a long-standing dispute over softwood lumber trade, with the US lumber industry claiming that Canadian lumber is unfairly subsidized.
• Tariffs: The US has imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports to offset these alleged subsidies. In August 2024, the US nearly doubled the tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber, increasing them to 14.54%.
• No National Emergency Declaration: Although the situation has led to trade tensions and concerns about lumber prices in the US, there's no record of President Biden declaring a national emergency related to Canadian lumber.
• Section 232 Investigation: In March 2025, the Biden administration initiated a Section 232 investigation into whether lumber imports threaten US national security. This investigation could potentially lead to further trade actions, including tariffs or quotas, but it's not a national emergency declaration.

While President Trump did not specifically declare a national emergency solely on Canadian lumber, he did take several actions related to lumber and trade that significantly impacted the Canadian softwood lumber industry:
1. National Security Investigation & Potential Tariffs:

• In March 2025, President Trump directed the Commerce Department to investigate whether lumber imports pose a national security threat.
• This investigation, conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, could lead to tariffs on lumber imports if a threat is found.
• The National Association of Home Builders | NAHB notes that the investigation could result in additional tariffs by the end of 2025.

2. Tariffs on Canadian Goods:

• President Trump imposed a 25% tariff on various Canadian goods, including softwood lumber, in February 2025, according to the National Association of Home Builders | NAHB.
• These tariffs were intended to address trade imbalances and protect domestic industries.
• However, these tariffs were later paused for goods covered under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement.

3. Lumber Included in "Reciprocal" Tariffs:

• In April 2025, President Trump declared a national emergency related to trade deficits and imposed "reciprocal" tariffs on countries with large trade deficits with the US.
• While Canada was initially exempted from the higher reciprocal tariffs, a 10% baseline tariff applied to all countries, including Canada, which affected lumber imports.

In summary: Although a specific national emergency declaration focused solely on Canadian lumber didn't occur, President Trump initiated actions (national security investigation and broader tariffs) that significantly impacted the Canadian lumber industry and trade relations.
In Conclusion: While the Biden administration has taken action to address the softwood lumber dispute, it has not declared a national emergency.

Noted. You did not address on why President Trump is subsidizing certain US Ag exports while complaining about Canada and lumber imports.

That novella represents the point flying over your head. Biden had no more authority to raise tariffs on Canadian lumber than Trump does.

 

[Callen]

That novella represents the point flying over your head. Biden had no more authority to raise tariffs on Canadian lumber than Trump does.

He did have the authority under the laws he cited , so does Trump.

What Fox is not making clear to their faithful is that President's, including Trump, have the power to impose tariffs in accordance with certain laws. The court did NOT rule Trump had no authority to raise tariffs but rather that his 10% tariffs did not meet the criteria of the legislation he cited as the basis for those tariffs. I know the subtlety is difficult for some to grasp.

 

[Napoleon]

He did have the authority under the laws he cited , so does Trump.

What Fox is not making clear to their faithful is that President's, including Trump, have the power to impose tariffs in accordance with certain laws. The court did NOT rule Trump had no authority to raise tariffs but rather that his 10% tariffs did not meet the criteria of the legislation he cited as the basis for those tariffs. I know the subtlety is difficult for some to grasp.

What your social media personalities telling you what to say have failed to communicate to you is that isn’t for them to decide. I’ve explained and cited why that is many many times in this thread. Where the conversation is now is that the Court of Appeals has blocked the lower court summary judgement.

 

[mike2810]

That novella represents the point flying over your head. Biden had no more authority to raise tariffs on Canadian lumber than Trump does.

sigh. the point is Biden did not use the false claim of National Emergency to implement tariffs.
Both were wrong to not work with Congress.