• 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’

Callen said:
Bookmarked
Click to expand...
Please do. I’m right 99% of the time in my SCOTUS predictions. I’ll be happy to come back and say I told you so. If memory serves, the last time I was wrong was Citizens United. What’s your record?
 
Napoleon said:
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.
Click to expand...
  • Congress holds the authority to end a national emergency, but courts ensure that the President’s actions align with constitutional principles and statutory limits. Without judicial oversight, an executive could stretch the law beyond its intended scope, potentially violating individual rights or due process protections.
  • The Judiciary does not determine whether a national emergency exists; rather, it evaluates whether executive actions taken under IEEPA remain within legal boundaries. If a President misapplies the law or uses emergency powers for unconstitutional purposes, courts can block specific actions.
  • Previous rulings have refined how emergency powers operate, ensuring they are not used arbitrarily. Courts have ruled against executive orders that extend beyond IEEPA's intended scope, reinforcing the separation of powers and preserving constitutional rights.
  • Even if Congress does not revoke an emergency declaration, judicial rulings can prevent unconstitutional applications of emergency powers. The President cannot bypass core constitutional rights simply by declaring an emergency, as courts still uphold due process and legal safeguards.
  • Throughout history, courts have reviewed presidential actions under various emergency laws, setting limits on how such powers can be used. These rulings ensure that executive authority remains checked, preventing overreach and protecting individual freedoms.

For further reading on the legal framework of the IEEPA and relevant court cases, check out:
 
Xilnik said:
  • Congress holds the authority to end a national emergency, but courts ensure that the President’s actions align with constitutional principles and statutory limits. Without judicial oversight, an executive could stretch the law beyond its intended scope, potentially violating individual rights or due process protections.
  • The Judiciary does not determine whether a national emergency exists; rather, it evaluates whether executive actions taken under IEEPA remain within legal boundaries. If a President misapplies the law or uses emergency powers for unconstitutional purposes, courts can block specific actions.
  • Previous rulings have refined how emergency powers operate, ensuring they are not used arbitrarily. Courts have ruled against executive orders that extend beyond IEEPA's intended scope, reinforcing the separation of powers and preserving constitutional rights.
  • Even if Congress does not revoke an emergency declaration, judicial rulings can prevent unconstitutional applications of emergency powers. The President cannot bypass core constitutional rights simply by declaring an emergency, as courts still uphold due process and legal safeguards.
  • Throughout history, courts have reviewed presidential actions under various emergency laws, setting limits on how such powers can be used. These rulings ensure that executive authority remains checked, preventing overreach and protecting individual freedoms.

For further reading on the legal framework of the IEEPA and relevant court cases, check out:
Click to expand...
As previously noted, Congress did not transfer its authority to levy tariffs to the Judiciary. It didn’t transfer its authority to review or claw back said authority to the Judiciary. The only thing the Judiciary has legitimate authority to do here is either strike down the law wholesale as unconstitutional or evaluate if the President is exercising authorities not granted to him by the Act. Neither of which are the case here.

They do not have the authority to review the President’s decision that there exists a national emergency such that he can exercise those authorities. They do not have the authority to review the President’s decisions in the exercise of those authorities. It is not their constitutional place to adjudicate that.
 
Napoleon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Quote where someone said it's an "absolute?" What do you think judicial review is for?
 
Buster Keaton said:
The corrupt Democrats can't win at the ballot box, therefore they are attempting to impose judicial tyranny to interfere the e executive branch.
Click to expand...
What are the three branches of government?
 
Napoleon said:
As previously noted, Congress did not transfer its authority to levy tariffs to the Judiciary. It didn’t transfer its authority to review or claw back said authority to the Judiciary. The only thing the Judiciary has legitimate authority to do here is either strike down the law wholesale as unconstitutional or evaluate if the President is exercising authorities not granted to him by the Act. Neither of which are the case here.

They do not have the authority to review the President’s decision that there exists a national emergency such that he can exercise those authorities. They do not have the authority to review the President’s decisions in the exercise of those authorities. It is not their constitutional place to adjudicate that.
Click to expand...

They can review whether or not a POTUS' actions are relevant/applicable/appropriate to a national emergency he/she declares. Which is exactly what they did, well within the realm of their authority.

"The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders." link​
 
Lursa said:
They can review whether or not a POTUS' actions are relevant/applicable/appropriate to a national emergency he/she declares. Which is exactly what they did, well within the realm of their authority.

"The Trafficking Tariffs fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders." link​
Click to expand...
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.
 
Napoleon said:
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?
Click to expand...
Here's an idea (I know you'll ignore): read the decision. Educate yourself. Don't post stupidly.
 
BirdinHand said:
Yes, they do.

🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...
Article III Judicial Branch
Section 2 Justiciability
Clause 1 Cases or Controversies
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...

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

(a)
Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.

(b)
The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.
Click to expand...
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 -
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit—
(i)
any transactions in foreign exchange,
Click to expand...
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 -
(a) Unlawful acts
It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under this chapter.
Click to expand...
One might ask if the judges in this decision violated this penalties provision.
 
Napoleon said:
He is not obligated to abide by an unconstitutional usurpation of his authority by the court.
Click to expand...
Nor should we be obligated to abide by the unconstitutional usurpation of the authority of Congress by Trump.
 
Ikari said:
Nor should we be obligated to abide by the unconstitutional usurpation of the authority of Congress by Trump.
Click to expand...
How the heck did Trump "usurp" any power? Congress GRANTED him (the president in general) these powers.
 
Napoleon said:
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?
Click to expand...
True. President have imposed tariffs in the past.

What is in question is how President Trump is going about it. He claims everything is a National Emergency to bypass Congress. That seems a bit of a reach.
Explain how Canada timber imported into the US is a National Emergency. Especially when the US govt. subsidizes certain Ag products that are exported to other countries.
 
Lutherf said:
How the heck did Trump "usurp" any power? Congress GRANTED him (the president in general) these powers.
Click to expand...
Under specific conditions which are not met.
 
mike2810 said:
True. President have imposed tariffs in the past.

What is in question is how President Trump is going about it. He claims everything is a National Emergency to bypass Congress. That seems a bit of a reach.
Explain how Canada timber imported into the US is a National Emergency. Especially when the US govt. subsidizes certain Ag products that are exported to other countries.
Click to expand...
What was the national emergency that prompted Biden to unilaterally and significantly increase the tariffs on Canadian lumber?
 
Ikari said:
Nor should we be obligated to abide by the unconstitutional usurpation of the authority of Congress by Trump.
Click to expand...
Your willingness to comply with Trump’s constitutional exercise of his authority under the IEEPA is surplus to requirements.
 
Ikari said:
Under specific conditions which are not met.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that court got that right. I quoted the pertinent part of the Act and the authority to invoke sure looks pretty broad to me. The court appears to pull their determination that it's more narrow out of thin air.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Righties will no doubt agree wholeheartedly.

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

lawandcrime.com

Trump admin says tariffs 'immune from judicial scrutiny' in appeal to blockbuster ruling

The Trump administration is appealing a blockbuster federal court ruling blocking the president's tariffs on imports from nearly every foreign country.
lawandcrime.com lawandcrime.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. :oops:
Click to expand...
Federal judges job is to ensure the constitutionality of actions of any administration. Tariffs, whether to impose them or not is an action belonging to congress, section 8, Article I. Now congress did give the president authority to impose Tariffs under the following laws passed by congress.

Trade Expansion Act of 1962:

This Act, particularly Section 232, authorized the president to adjust imports, including through tariffs, if they were found to threaten national security.

Trade Act of 1974:

This Act granted the president broad authority to negotiate trade agreements and adjust tariffs, as well as mechanisms to protect U.S. industries. Section 122 of the Trade Act also allowed for temporary tariffs to address "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits".

Section 301:

Section 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 also gave the president broad authority to take action, including retaliatory tariffs, against foreign practices that are unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory and burden U.S. commerce.

International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

This law, passed in 1977, also provides the president with broad authority to address international economic emergencies, including through the imposition of tariffs.

Judges have the authority, power to ensure any administration hasn’t overstepped the above authority granted to the president. Overstepping would be unconstitution.
 
Napoleon said:
As previously noted, Congress did not transfer its authority to levy tariffs to the Judiciary. It didn’t transfer its authority to review or claw back said authority to the Judiciary. The only thing the Judiciary has legitimate authority to do here is either strike down the law wholesale as unconstitutional or evaluate if the President is exercising authorities not granted to him by the Act. Neither of which are the case here.

They do not have the authority to review the President’s decision that there exists a national emergency such that he can exercise those authorities. They do not have the authority to review the President’s decisions in the exercise of those authorities. It is not their constitutional place to adjudicate that.
Click to expand...
Napoleon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the President possesses broad authority to regulate commerce in response to national security threats. However, judicial review plays a crucial role in determining whether executive actions exceed statutory limits, despite arguments claiming otherwise.

  • While the President can invoke emergency powers, courts determine whether the declaration aligns with constitutional principles. The judiciary does not revoke emergencies but can invalidate actions that exceed statutory authority. This ensures the Executive Branch does not operate beyond legal constraints.
  • Courts have intervened when executive claims went beyond legislative authorization. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court ruled that national emergencies do not grant unchecked presidential power. In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, the Court reinforced that Congress cannot delegate boundless authority without judicial oversight.
  • Judicial rulings have limited the application of IEEPA in economic sanctions and trade disputes. Arguments claiming courts cannot review executive decisions ignore cases where courts ruled on misuse of emergency economic powers, ensuring national security concerns do not justify unlimited discretion.
  • Even if Congress does not revoke an emergency, courts retain authority to determine whether executive actions violate constitutional protections. Ex parte Milligan demonstrated that emergencies do not override fundamental legal safeguards—a principle reaffirmed in modern judicial decisions.
  • While courts do not evaluate policy success, they prevent executive actions from exceeding legal parameters. This distinction is critical, as policy effectiveness does not determine legality. Courts review whether an action follows constitutional limits—not whether it achieves its intended goal.

For relevant case law supporting judicial oversight:
 
Napoleon said:
What was the national emergency that prompted Biden to unilaterally and significantly increase the tariffs on Canadian lumber?
Click to expand...
He didn't use national emergency authorities. He used anti dumping legislation.

AI Overview

The tariffs on Canadian lumber imposed by the Biden administration were implemented under the authority of the U.S. Tariff Act and, specifically, the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce determines whether goods are being sold at less than fair value or are benefiting from foreign government subsidies. These tariffs are primarily anti-dumping and countervailing duties, meaning they are imposed to counteract unfair trade practices, such as selling goods below market value or receiving subsidies from a foreign government.
Elaboration:
U.S. Tariff Act:
This act grants the U.S. government the power to impose tariffs on imported goods.
Department of Commerce:
This agency is responsible for determining whether tariffs are warranted and for calculating and enforcing them.
Anti-dumping and countervailing duties:
These are specific types of tariffs imposed to address unfair trade practices. Anti-dumping duties are imposed when a product is being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value (below the price in the exporting country). Countervailing duties are imposed when a product is benefiting from subsidies provided by the foreign government.
 
Xilnik said:
Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the President possesses broad authority to regulate commerce in response to national security threats. However, judicial review plays a crucial role in determining whether executive actions exceed statutory limits, despite arguments claiming otherwise.

  • While the President can invoke emergency powers, courts determine whether the declaration aligns with constitutional principles. The judiciary does not revoke emergencies but can invalidate actions that exceed statutory authority. This ensures the Executive Branch does not operate beyond legal constraints.
  • Courts have intervened when executive claims went beyond legislative authorization. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court ruled that national emergencies do not grant unchecked presidential power. In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, the Court reinforced that Congress cannot delegate boundless authority without judicial oversight.
  • Judicial rulings have limited the application of IEEPA in economic sanctions and trade disputes. Arguments claiming courts cannot review executive decisions ignore cases where courts ruled on misuse of emergency economic powers, ensuring national security concerns do not justify unlimited discretion.
  • Even if Congress does not revoke an emergency, courts retain authority to determine whether executive actions violate constitutional protections. Ex parte Milligan demonstrated that emergencies do not override fundamental legal safeguards—a principle reaffirmed in modern judicial decisions.
  • While courts do not evaluate policy success, they prevent executive actions from exceeding legal parameters. This distinction is critical, as policy effectiveness does not determine legality. Courts review whether an action follows constitutional limits—not whether it achieves its intended goal.

For relevant case law supporting judicial oversight:
Click to expand...
See what I already posted about that.
 
Napoleon said:
Your willingness to comply with Trump’s constitutional exercise of his authority under the IEEPA is surplus to requirements.
Click to expand...
That Trump actually meets the requirements of it, however, is necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom