Congress has abandoned its Constitutional prerogative of the power of the purse in regards to tariffs

[maxparrish]

The Supreme Court has ruled that only Congress can impose tariffs ?

No, the Supreme Court has not ruled the only Congress can impose tariffs. It has ruled that Congress may give discretionary power to the President to "regulate" trade "in an emergency". It has also allowed Congress to give discretionary tariffing authority to President to tariff using other specific bases, but only by following whatever procedures that Congress has designated in the law.

 

[maxparrish]

Umm, let me think.... NO!

The Presidency needs the power to act. That is why it is called the Executive Branch:

And Congress has the power to make law and if not veto'd, all executives (present or future) must faithfully execute it. That is why it is called the legislative branch.

Executive:

1. A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.
2. The chief officer of a government, state, or political division.
3. The branch of government charged with putting into effect a country's laws and the administering of its functions.

Legislative:

A group having the authority to write the law, the system of binding rules to regulate conduct, create and authorize taxes and tariffs, and allocate and authorize spending for whatever purpose it deems appropriate in accordance with the law.

executive — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Executive: relating to the part of a government that is responsible for making sure that laws and decisions are put into action: the executive branch. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/executive

Executive: belonging to the branch of government that is charged with such powers as diplomatic representation, superintendence of the execution of the laws, and appointment of officials and that usually has some power over legislation (as through veto). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/executive

Legislative:

The branch of government that makes the rules that the executive, among others, must follow and execute.

So, then, what's your point?

 

[Juks]

Congress doesnt want the responsibility.

One of the pillars of democracy is separation of powers. Legislative, executive, and judicial powers are separated to prevent concentration of power and balances maintain accountability between branches of government.

 

[NotreDame]

Why not just demand Congress rescind the statute it passed granting Trump that authority,?

Or better yet-- sue-- on the theory that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to delegate its authority to the executive?

Perhaps never a more fortuitous occasion to challenge the 1928 case of J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) and its progeny. Like Chevron Deferrence, the Substantially Affects Commerce Test, the Court’s test for impermissible delegation of Congressional vested powers isn’t rooted in the text, structure, or meaning of the Constitution. The present composition of SCOTUS is more likely than ever to overturn the precedent and case law in this area.

 

[bomberfox]

I would mostly just go with the ability to enact tariffs are at the sole discretion of congress and no other branch.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The wimps don't want the blame.

 

[NotreDame]

Umm, let me think.... NO!

The Presidency needs the power to act. That is why it is called the Executive Branch:

Executive:

1. A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.
2. The chief officer of a government, state, or political division.
3. The branch of government charged with putting into effect a country's laws and the administering of its functions.

executive — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Executive: relating to the part of a government that is responsible for making sure that laws and decisions are put into action: the executive branch. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/executive

Executive: belonging to the branch of government that is charged with such powers as diplomatic representation, superintendence of the execution of the laws, and appointment of officials and that usually has some power over legislation (as through veto). https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/executive

Yet, the “Presidency needs the power to act” isn’t theory, abstract thought, but governed by the Constitution. The power to impose tariffs is exclusively vested to Congress. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Article 1, Section 8, U.S. Constitution.

The President isn’t granted constitutional powers to impose tariffs. Beginning in the 30s, as a result of practical considerations that developed within a particular factual context, Congress vested by statute to the President discretionary authority to impose and set tariffs. Congress has since amended legislation and/or passed legislation accommodating the President with more discretionary authority pertaining tariffs.

The issue is whether Congress can delegate such authority to the President and if yes, then the limits, the scope, and whether the existing statutes impermissibly vested too much.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Yet, the “Presidency needs the power to act” isn’t theory, abstract thought, but governed by the Constitution. The power to impose tariffs is exclusively vested to Congress. “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Article 1, Section 8, U.S. Constitution.

The President isn’t granted constitutional powers to impose tariffs. Beginning in the 30s, as a result of practical considerations that developed within a particular factual context, Congress vested by statute to the President discretionary authority to impose and set tariffs. Congress has since amended legislation and/or passed legislation accommodating the President with more discretionary authority pertaining tariffs.

The issue is whether Congress can delegate such authority to the President and if yes, then the limits, the scope, and whether the existing statutes impermissibly vested too much.

I am aware of the above, including the Congressional Act delegating the Tariff authority to the President prior to Trump ever taking office.

So far, Trump's use of tariffs has been nothing less than a great success in many different ways, from balancing trade deficits, to breaking the economy of our current No. 1 socio-political- economic enemy, Communist China.

Moreover, Trump's economic actions have turned into a boom for our nation despite all the prior assertions of "horrible outcomes" that never actually occurred.

IMO this is why some Democrat members of Congress as well as their Democrat appointed friends in various District Judges are seeking to stop his success by any means necessary.

 

[Rich2018]

No, the Supreme Court has not ruled the only Congress can impose tariffs. It has ruled that Congress may give discretionary power to the President to "regulate" trade "in an emergency". It has also allowed Congress to give discretionary tariffing authority to President to tariff using other specific bases, but only by following whatever procedures that Congress has designated in the law.

So Trump has to get his lapdog congressmen and senators to rubber stamp such an authority.

 

[maxparrish]

So Trump has to get his lapdog congressmen and senators to rubber stamp such an authority.

To modify any existing law, Trump has to get a majority in both houses of Congress, as well as overcome a filibuster in the Senate should there be a majority.

I am very confident that Trump could not get a majority in Congress to grant the widespread powers he has invented with a fake "national emergency".

 

[maxparrish]

I am aware of the above, including the Congressional Act delegating the Tariff authority to the President prior to Trump ever taking office.

You are ignoring that delegation is limited by circumstance and usage. Read the law.

Article 1 of the Constuction plainly gives the legislative branch, not the president, the power to regulate “commerce with foreign nations” and to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

The tariffs, supposedly imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act only gives the president authority to impose some types of sanctions in situations when there is “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, AND ONLY if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.”

As the original House of Representatives put it leading to the enactment of the IEEPA , this law law is based on “a recognition that emergencies are by their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal ongoing problems.” The report adds that “[a] national emergency should be declared and emergency authorities employed only with respect to a specific set of circumstances which constitute a real emergency, and for no other purpose…. A national emergency should not be a normal state of affairs.”

So far, Trump's use of tariffs has been nothing less than a great success in many different ways, from balancing trade deficits, to breaking the economy of our current No. 1 socio-political- economic enemy, Communist China.

It's so-called success in cutting off a major supply of consumer goods and/or significantly increasing business and consumer costs for those goods purchased is irrelevant. The law is the law, and Trump is violating the plain law of Congress.

Moreover, Trump's economic actions have turned into a boom for our nation despite all the prior assertions of "horrible outcomes" that never actually occurred.

You have a rather vivid imagination given the increasingly gloomy data now rolling in.

IMO this is why some Democrat members of Congress as well as their Democrat appointed friends in various District Judges are seeking to stop his success by any means necessary.

And it is an opinion based on ignoring reality that so far its a clean sweep by judges of Obama, Reagan, and Trump.

 

[Rich2018]

To modify any existing law, Trump has to get a majority in both houses of Congress, as well as overcome a filibuster in the Senate should there be a majority.

I am very confident that Trump could not get a majority in Congress to grant the widespread powers he has invented with a fake "national emergency".

Just as I said. With the Republicans having a majority in both houses right now.

 

[maxparrish]

Just as I said. With the Republicans having a majority in both houses right now.

Yes but many of them don't support tariffs, even if they don't say so openly. If Trump thought he could get Congress to go along, I suspect he would have tried.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes but many of them don't support tariffs, even if they don't say so openly. If Trump thought he could get Congress to go along, I suspect he would have tried.

They support (in terms of voting) whatever Trump tells them to support.