Emperor Palpatine and the Mad King Trump find "Emergency Powers" effective in neutering their Republic.

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, it is Congress and not the President that has the power to impose duties, imposts, and excises—better known as taxes.

Trump's seizure of what should be only Congresses power was taken, not unlike other autocratic evolution, through Presidential empowerment by the legislative branch - albeit more slowly by custom and laws to give the President a power of "phone and pen" decrees through notorious executive orders.

Still, for this volume of seizure Trump needed a law that gave him sweeping power without the need to meet certain procedures and Congressional checks. Like Emperor Palpatine of the Star Wars saga, he needed a "Emergency Powers Act" to fully grasp a power that here to for only Congress had - mass tariffs.

Trump and his advisors used what had already been written: the "International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)", a 1977 statute that gave a president extensive powers to address "national emergencies." Although IEEPA never mentions tariffs and has never been used to impose widespread tariffs, President Trump and his advisers have repeatedly said the IEEPA is the legal basis for their expansive tariff ambitions.

But this is new for Trump. Previously in his first term the Trump administration used Section 301 of the trade Act of 1974, which required specific countries and specific products for targeting. That took 11 months to implement against China. Biden, however, used the IEEPA in his "national emergency" to impose sweeping sanctions on Russia within hours of Putin's invasion. The Trump people took note and now they believed it gives Trump the power to impose tariffs on the world within days of his decision.

Because courts in general, and the Roberts court in particular, has given President's semi monarchal power over foreign affairs AND because the Roberts court has often rubber-stamped long-standing statutory violations by Presidents as ignorable in matters of foreign affairs we do not if his court would step up to defend the people's right to have their Congressional representees approve is unknown.

But should current filings work their way through the system (as they surely will) and force Trump to rely on trade statutes—or to go to Congress to seek new authorities— it would be consistent with IEEPA’s history and practice, and with Congress’s long-standing practice of delegating trade power to the president only subject to more extensive procedural requirements. Arguments against IEEPA tariffs will be very strong with respect to Trump’s “universal tariff,” which courts dissect under the Supreme Court’s emerging “major questions doctrine.”

maxparrish said:

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, it is Congress and not the President that has the power to impose duties, imposts, and excises—better known as taxes.

Trump's seizure of what should be only Congresses power was taken

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Congress gave the President that power decades ago.

Mycroft said:

Wrong.

Congress gave the President that power decades ago.

Click to expand...

Post #2

Interesting.

All you have to do is corroborate your claim that "Congress gave the President the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to impose duties, imposts, and excises - better known as taxes."

Copy and paste excerpts from credible sources to which you post the links.

Remember, simply providing a link isn't good enough.

Mycroft said:

Wrong.

Congress gave the President that power decades ago.

Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that they did not give this power for mass tariff taxation, what "should be" be and "what is" are too different statements. What should be is that we respect the constitution and the separate powers enumerated for each branch's domain, what is are those indifferent to the highest law in the land - there is a difference between a conservative and a fascist. A conservative deeply respects our founding document as a social compact, the fascist looks upon Trump as the only source of law that counts.

maxparrish said:

Aside from the fact that they did not give this power for mass tariff taxation, what "should be" be and "what is" are too different statements. What should be is that we respect the constitution and the separate powers enumerated for each branch's domain, what is are those indifferent to the highest law in the land - there is a difference between a conservative and a fascist. A conservative deeply respects our founding document as a social compact, the fascist looks upon Trump as the only source of law that counts.

Click to expand...

Regardless your spinning interpretation of the law and tariffs and your whining about the Constitution, the fact remains that Congress gave the President the power to impose tariffs.

Dictators routinely fabricate "emergencies" so they can abuse emergency powers.

Mycroft said:

Regardless your spinning interpretation of the law and tariffs and your whining about the Constitution, the fact remains that Congress gave the President the power to impose tariffs.

Click to expand...

Show us the what, when, where, and how Congress gave the President the legal power to impose mass taxation at his whim? Till then, it didn't.

maxparrish said:

Show us the what, when, where, and how Congress gave the President the legal power to impose mass taxation at his whim? Till then, it didn't.

Click to expand...

Here you go...

maxparrish said:

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, it is Congress and not the President that has the power to impose duties, imposts, and excises—better known as taxes. ...

But should current filings work their way through the system (as they surely will) and force Trump to rely on trade statutes—or to go to Congress to seek new authorities— it would be consistent with IEEPA’s history and practice, and with Congress’s long-standing practice of delegating trade power to the president only subject to more extensive procedural requirements. Arguments against IEEPA tariffs will be very strong with respect to Trump’s “universal tariff,” which courts dissect under the Supreme Court’s emerging “major questions doctrine.”

Click to expand...

IEEAPA was enacted in 1977 as a part of a reform effort to reduce Presidential abuse of "emergency powers" which Presidents love to invoke to seize powers they do not constitutionally have. In particular the reform was intended to limit the "Enemy Act" of 1917 (TWEA) enacted in WW1 - an act that allowed the President to seize "enemy property", control imports and exports, etc - those necessary in wartime.

While most Presidents respected the limits of such powers only to wars, Presidential abuse occurred (Roosevelt 1933, Johnson 1968, export controls against the Soviet bloc when Congress allowed the actual export control laws expire. Watergate caused Congress to reign in a seemingly out-of-control executive power, the TWEA being one target.

Thus, IEEPA was born, like TWEA, but subject to additional limitations. These included procedural requirements: To invoke IEEPA, presidents must declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act. For actions more than a year, presidents must submit an annual declaration to continue the emergency. Congress also gave itself the power to overturn IEEPA actions with a concurrent resolution, which was not subject to a presidential veto.

Unlike TWEA, however, IEEPA does not provide the authority to regulate purely domestic transactions, and Congress imposed limitations (subsequently expanded) so that IEEPA could not be used to regulate non-economic transactions such as personal communications and certain humanitarian donations.

Still, in spite of Congresses intent for it to be used only for "emergencies that are by their nature rare and brief, and are not to be equated with normal, ongoing problems.” the government found it as corruptible as the original TWEA. It was used beyond wars and terrorism, to sustain sanctions against persons for decades, against routine corruption, for bans on imports and exports, and asset freezes against 17,000 individuals and businesses.

What was a limited congressional grant of power under limited circumstances has turned into an all-purpose "extra constitutional" weapon far beyond true national emergencies and for the executive branch to far exceed its constitutional authority on even routine matters belonging either to Congress or the Courts - including the taking of private property without compensation. And the Supreme Court in 1981 turned it into its current unchecked state by removing the power of Congress by a majority vote to stop an illegal action to NOW requiring a 2/3rds vote of Congress - impossible in a politicized environment.

Like Income Tax Regulations and RICO, IEEPA are unboxed monsters. A tool for an Emperor Palpatine made real.

Belatedly and finally the judiciary is starting to awaken to its own disregard of Constitutional limits on executive power. In the 2000s, courts found that IEEPA asset freezes against Americans are subject to Fourth Amendment restraints on unreasonable searches and seizures. In 2020, courts determined that IEEPA did not authorize President Trump to ban Chinese-owned social media apps TikTok and WeChat. In 2024 the Fifth Circuit found that IEEPA’s definition of “property” was not sufficiently broad noting the Supreme Court’s 2024 Loper Bright decision overturning the Chevron deference to agency interpretation of statutes. It is, after all, now the role of courts to “determine the ‘best’ reading of a statute; a merely ‘permissible’ reading is not enough.”

Cont...

Mycroft said:

Here you go...

Click to expand...

Cont... for msg #9

Mycroft provides a link with several statutes that empower particular tariffs requiring specific procedures and limits. However, only ONE of them was invoked to justify mass tariffing: the IEEPA, therein is why Trumps act has been unlawful.
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress authority to set tariffs and to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The president’s only power to impose tariffs arises from what scope and kind of authority that is delegated to him by Congress.

The IEEPA statute plainly states what the powers are granted: “means of instructions, licenses...” “ (to) investigate, regulate, or prohibit,” any "foreign exchange transactions; payments or transfers of credit that involve a foreign country or national"; and "the import or export of currency or securities." Those powers also authorize the president to “investigate, regulate, … prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding … use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in ... any property in which a foreign country or foreign national has an interest.”

This language clearly empowers the president to prevent or prohibit the import or export of goods—the basis for the long-standing use of IEEPA to impose trade embargoes. That makes sense. But note that it specifically does not include the power to tax or tariff any American or American business for receipt (import) of a good or service. This is in ALL of the trade statutes cited (BUT NOT USED by Trump), Congress clearly referenced tariffing authority, but but here it did not. Not ONCE in the 48 years since passage has any President used IEEPA to impose a tariff, including Trump in his first term.

As the House report accompanying IEEPA stated, the goal was to convey “upon the President a new set of authorities for use in time of national emergency which are both more limited in scope than those of [TWEA] and subject to procedural limitations.”

Finally, the argument against IEEPA as the basis for “universal baseline” tariff is in the Supreme Court jurisprudence of the major questions doctrine that holds Congress must clearly state its intent to give the president authority to take particularly momentous regulatory actions, and that presidents cannot simply rely on ambiguous, decades-old statutes as the basis for sweeping policy changes. In 2022, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court cited the major questions doctrine to strike down a Biden administration effort to reinterpret provisions of the Clean Air Act and in 2023, in Biden v. Nebraska, the Court cited the doctrine to strike down Biden’s efforts to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student debt by a "phone and pen."

As the Court wrote to explain its reasoning in West Virginia, “in certain extraordinary cases, both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent make us ‘reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text’ the delegation claimed to be lurking there …. The agency instead must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power it claims.”

There isn't any doubt that a new universal tariff is a major question, one that nearly triggered a financial Armageddon and would cost every American family 4,000 a year - impacts are at least as dramatic as those at issue in West Virginia and Nebraska.

In short, the IEEPA was not intended, nor is it, a Congressional authorization for the President to declare a fake emergency and to grant the President the sole power to impose a massive, universal, and permanent tax on American businesses and consumers.

Trump, unsurprisingly, is unlawful seizing power neve granted to any President by the IEEPA.

Mycroft said:

Regardless your spinning interpretation of the law and tariffs and your whining about the Constitution, the fact remains that Congress gave the President the power to impose tariffs.

Click to expand...

That's nice. Prove it!

Gordy327 said:

That's nice. Prove it!

Click to expand...

I did.

Read the thread.

Mycroft said:

I did.

Read the thread.

Click to expand...

The thread addressed why you're wrong

Gordy327 said:

The thread addressed why you're wrong

Click to expand...

boo-hoo

Bye.

maxparrish said:

Cont... for msg #9

Mycroft provides a link with several statutes that empower particular tariffs requiring specific procedures and limits. However, only ONE of them was invoked to justify mass tariffing: the IEEPA, therein is why Trumps act has been unlawful.

​

Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress authority to set tariffs and to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The president’s only power to impose tariffs arises from what scope and kind of authority that is delegated to him by Congress.

The IEEPA statute plainly states what the powers are granted: “means of instructions, licenses...” “ (to) investigate, regulate, or prohibit,” any "foreign exchange transactions; payments or transfers of credit that involve a foreign country or national"; and "the import or export of currency or securities." Those powers also authorize the president to “investigate, regulate, … prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding … use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in ... any property in which a foreign country or foreign national has an interest.”

This language clearly empowers the president to prevent or prohibit the import or export of goods—the basis for the long-standing use of IEEPA to impose trade embargoes. That makes sense. But note that it specifically does not include the power to tax or tariff any American or American business for receipt (import) of a good or service. This is in ALL of the trade statutes cited (BUT NOT USED by Trump), Congress clearly referenced tariffing authority, but but here it did not. Not ONCE in the 48 years since passage has any President used IEEPA to impose a tariff, including Trump in his first term.

As the House report accompanying IEEPA stated, the goal was to convey “upon the President a new set of authorities for use in time of national emergency which are both more limited in scope than those of [TWEA] and subject to procedural limitations.”

Finally, the argument against IEEPA as the basis for “universal baseline” tariff is in the Supreme Court jurisprudence of the major questions doctrine that holds Congress must clearly state its intent to give the president authority to take particularly momentous regulatory actions, and that presidents cannot simply rely on ambiguous, decades-old statutes as the basis for sweeping policy changes. In 2022, in West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court cited the major questions doctrine to strike down a Biden administration effort to reinterpret provisions of the Clean Air Act and in 2023, in Biden v. Nebraska, the Court cited the doctrine to strike down Biden’s efforts to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student debt by a "phone and pen."

As the Court wrote to explain its reasoning in West Virginia, “in certain extraordinary cases, both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent make us ‘reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text’ the delegation claimed to be lurking there …. The agency instead must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power it claims.”

There isn't any doubt that a new universal tariff is a major question, one that nearly triggered a financial Armageddon and would cost every American family 4,000 a year - impacts are at least as dramatic as those at issue in West Virginia and Nebraska.

In short, the IEEPA was not intended, nor is it, a Congressional authorization for the President to declare a fake emergency and to grant the President the sole power to impose a massive, universal, and permanent tax on American businesses and consumers.

Trump, unsurprisingly, is unlawful seizing power neve granted to any President by the IEEPA.

Click to expand...

Then I guess the Crats & their NGO allies' Lawfare they directed at Musk and DOGE should be refocused on tariffs now.
Ya know, since their fight against cost-savings seems to be failing when they reach the USSC.
This oughta be good. Really productive stuff for the Party's image.

bubbabgone said:

Then I guess the Crats & their NGO allies' Lawfare they directed at Musk and DOGE should be refocused on tariffs now.
Ya know, since their fight against cost-savings seems to be failing when they reach the USSC.
This oughta be good. Really productive stuff for the Party's image.

Click to expand...

They should have been, and should be, focused on tariffs, and given that Musk agrees with them on this major issue, should he wish to take the risk so might he. However, there are at least two groups filing or will soon file suits on the tariffs.

maxparrish said:

They should have been, and should be, focused on tariffs, and given that Musk agrees with them on this major issue, should he wish to take the risk so might he. However, there are at least two groups filing or will soon file suits on the tariffs.

Click to expand...

Well there you go.
Keep doing what’s best for the team in the next election.
Be relentless in pursuit of power and control.
Country be damned.

maxparrish said:

Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, it is Congress, not the President, that has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, it is Congress and not the President that has the power to impose duties, imposts, and excises—better known as taxes.

Trump's seizure of what should be only Congresses power was taken, not unlike other autocratic evolution, through Presidential empowerment by the legislative branch - albeit more slowly by custom and laws to give the President a power of "phone and pen" decrees through notorious executive orders.

Still, for this volume of seizure Trump needed a law that gave him sweeping power without the need to meet certain procedures and Congressional checks. Like Emperor Palpatine of the Star Wars saga, he needed a "Emergency Powers Act" to fully grasp a power that here to for only Congress had - mass tariffs.

Trump and his advisors used what had already been written: the "International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)", a 1977 statute that gave a president extensive powers to address "national emergencies." Although IEEPA never mentions tariffs and has never been used to impose widespread tariffs, President Trump and his advisers have repeatedly said the IEEPA is the legal basis for their expansive tariff ambitions.

But this is new for Trump. Previously in his first term the Trump administration used Section 301 of the trade Act of 1974, which required specific countries and specific products for targeting. That took 11 months to implement against China. Biden, however, used the IEEPA in his "national emergency" to impose sweeping sanctions on Russia within hours of Putin's invasion. The Trump people took note and now they believed it gives Trump the power to impose tariffs on the world within days of his decision.

Because courts in general, and the Roberts court in particular, has given President's semi monarchal power over foreign affairs AND because the Roberts court has often rubber-stamped long-standing statutory violations by Presidents as ignorable in matters of foreign affairs we do not if his court would step up to defend the people's right to have their Congressional representees approve is unknown.

But should current filings work their way through the system (as they surely will) and force Trump to rely on trade statutes—or to go to Congress to seek new authorities— it would be consistent with IEEPA’s history and practice, and with Congress’s long-standing practice of delegating trade power to the president only subject to more extensive procedural requirements. Arguments against IEEPA tariffs will be very strong with respect to Trump’s “universal tariff,” which courts dissect under the Supreme Court’s emerging “major questions doctrine.”

Click to expand...

It is certainly reasonable to condemn Congress for delegating its authority over commerce to a president.

And it's reasonable to argue Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority to delegate its express authority to another branch (predictably enough, it would be conservatives leading a meaningful charge against Trumps authority to issue unilateral tariffs. Progressives-- for all their bellyaching here-- want a president in general to have this authority).

But-- as was pointed out-- Biden did the same thing with respects to Russia. And there was no talk of 'mad kings' and 'Emperor Palpatine' when he did it.

There was no such talk for a number of reasons, including that the sudden outbreak of war in Europe was not to be equated with "normal, ongoing problems"; ie it was a war, and true emergency - what the both the original TWEA and replacement IEEPA was designed for.

Moreover, the very structure of the law itself and the powers given are designed for embargoes, sanctions, property seizure, and the like against foreign powers to deal with an obvious emergency, but does not even mention tariffs, let alone against the entire world in peacetime.

That isn't to say the IEEPA sanctioning power has not been misused by other Presidents against particular private and foreign based corruption cases and other non-emergency circumstances, BUT none have been as arrogant to try and use it against every nation in the world in a scheme to impose massive taxes and destroy the global economic order at the whim of a single man.

Taxation for the purpose of taxation (mass universal tariffs) is Constitutionally, solely within the realm of basic Congressional powers and cannot be of loaded to the sitting autocrat - not even King George had that power over Parliament.

Our tariff obsessed mad King believes he should, and does is challenging the courts and Congress to stop him. They likely can't, at least not in time.