• 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!

US court blocks Trump from imposing the bulk of his tariffs

Being entirely truthful, all this does is force Trump to structure his tariffs very differently to fall under "separate legal authorities." A minor good thing of course but does not really alter all that much the path Trump has decided to take, and in the balance is what is left in market and economic stability.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
"A panel of federal judges on Wednesday blocked President Trump from imposing some of his steepest tariffs on China and other U.S. trading partners, finding in two cases that he vastly overstepped his ability to issue those expansive duties under federal law.

The ruling, by the U.S. Court of International Trade, delivered an early yet significant setback to Mr. Trump in his campaign to strike a series of agreements that reorient the nation’s trading relationships, setting up a legal fight that could soon reach the Supreme Court."


--

Congrats, Don, you just got bench-slapped for taxing American companies and American consumers to fix a problem your tariffs can’t touch. Turns out "national emergency" isn’t a magic word, it’s just your excuse for a price hike on our own businesses!
Click to expand...
Seems like grounds for the biggest class action lawsuit in history.
 
Mycroft said:
Not true.

Here is an excerpt from the table of contents for the report...

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ................................................................................................... 1​
ALGERIA ..................................................................................................................................................... 5​
ANGOLA ...................................................................................................................................................... 9​
ARAB LEAGUE ........................................................................................................................................ 13​
ARGENTINA ............................................................................................................................................. 14​
AUSTRALIA .............................................................................................................................................. 18​
BANGLADESH ......................................................................................................................................... 21​
BOLIVIA .................................................................................................................................................... 26​
BRAZIL ...................................................................................................................................................... 29​
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM ......................................................................................................................... 35​
CAMBODIA ............................................................................................................................................... 37​
CANADA ................................................................................................................................................... 40​
CHILE ......................................................................................................................................................... 46​
CHINA ........................................................................................................................................................ 48​
​

As you can see, the report deals with much more than China.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Oof, copied and pasted the wrong one.

This report still does not address the global tariffs levied. This has no actual impact on the legality of this ruling. The ruling points out that the power to levy tariffs by the executive is only vested under the auspice of national security. The existence of a trade deficit does not meet that criteria.
 
Buster Keaton said:
Tariffs on American products reduce manufacturing and jobs.
Click to expand...
Are you arguing that Democrats are imposing tariffs on American products worldwide? You do realize most countries did not have significant tariffs on American goods until they retaliated to those imposed by Trump, right? Please try to make sense.
 
Variant said:
It's probably just taken this long for someone to crack open and read the whole constitution to realize that the President isn't supposed to have unilateral taxation powers for made up emergencies.
Click to expand...
It's no different than the rulings against the AEA. Neither of these two acts had a valid reason to implement. Constitutional lawyers and economic scholars have been telling us this since day one.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Being entirely truthful, all this does is force Trump to structure his tariffs very differently to fall under "separate legal authorities."
Click to expand...
Those other authorities have limits and are slower. E.g. if he tries to say it's a national security threat, that requires studies to back up those claims, and public comments.

Otherwise, he'll need Congressional approval... and won't get it.

They cited IEEPA specifically because, as all dictators know, "emergency powers" are a license to ignore checks and balances.
 
maxparrish said:
Should Trump try to ignore this one, we will see a Constitutional crisis. And this isn't the only federal court where a suit has been filed on these illegal tariffs.
Click to expand...
I hate to break this news to you, but I have it on clear authority, we've been in a constitutional crisis since Trump ignored his first court order to turn the planes around. Everyone wants to dance around this fact, but in reality, it was only the first time.
 
Xilnik said:
Are you arguing that Democrats are imposing tariffs on American products worldwide? You do realize most countries did not have significant tariffs on American goods until they retaliated to those imposed by Trump, right? Please try to make sen
Click to expand...

Trump is using tariffs as a negotiating tool.
If they lower their tariffs, we will lower our tariffs.
The Radical Left is trying to interfere with negotiations.
The question should be why would the far Left want to interfere with negotiations.
 
Buster Keaton said:
Trump is using tariffs as a negotiating tool.
If they lower their tariffs, we will lower our tariffs.
The Radical Left is trying to interfere with negotiations.
The question should be why would the far Left want to interfere with negotiations.
Click to expand...
😂😂😂

Trump imposed global tariffs like a school yard bully - hurting domestic industry and consumers - utilizing a faux “emergency” to do such.

The courts are now weighing in.

Trump should stay within the bounds of the Constitution and the powers of his office.

Real simple stuff.
 
Buster Keaton said:
Trump is using tariffs as a negotiating tool.
If they lower their tariffs, we will lower our tariffs.
The Radical Left is trying to interfere with negotiations.
The question should be why would the far Left want to interfere with negotiations.
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Yeah penguins are imposing tariffs on US goods
Trump has no plan which is why he keeps caving
 
Quag said:
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Yeah penguins are imposing tariffs on US goods
Trump has no plan which is why he keeps caving
Click to expand...
Yea, a lot of the far left are blinded by their fanatical hate.
They are beyond help.
 
Buster Keaton said:
Trump is using tariffs as a negotiating tool.
If they lower their tariffs, we will lower our tariffs.
The Radical Left is trying to interfere with negotiations.
The question should be why would the far Left want to interfere with negotiations.
Click to expand...
If that's what you believe, this reflects a misunderstanding of how tariffs work, who they impact, and how they were implemented. Many have argued about the legality of Trump's approach, and the courts determined he undermined the laws under our constitution again. If Trump wanted to negotiate, he would have started with that through diplomacy with our friendly allies. Instead, he chose to alienate our allies and destroy our reputation. Why you seem to believe that was not only necessary but a positive approach is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
This won't hold up. More activist Democrat judges just trying to stand in the way of anything and everything Trump tries to do.
 
forn said:
This won't hold up. More activist Democrat judges just trying to stand in the way of anything and everything Trump tries to do.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt at making this a partisan ruling, but your opinion doesn't hold up. The three-judge panel that ruled against Trump's tariffs consisted of judges appointed by different administrations, reflecting a mix of political backgrounds.
  • Judge Timothy Reif was appointed by Donald Trump.
  • Judge Jane Restani was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
  • Judge Gary Katzmann was appointed by Barack Obama.
Despite their varied political affiliations, the panel unanimously ruled that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not grant him unbounded tariff authority.

The ruling emphasized that:
  • The IEEPA does not delegate unlimited tariff authority to the President.
  • Congress retains the constitutional power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
  • The tariffs lacked identifiable limits and did not meet the legal threshold for emergency economic measures.
  • The Trump administration has filed an appeal, arguing that trade deficits constitute a national emergency.

Tariff authority must be exercised within constitutional and statutory limits.

Trade court blocks President Trump's tariffs, ruling they exceed legal authority

Federal trade court rules against several Trump tariffs

Court strikes down most of Trump's tariffs, ruling them illegal

Federal court says Trump doesn't have the power to impose tariffs unilaterally

U.S. Court of International Trade rules several of Trump's tariffs as contrary to law
 
Buster Keaton said:
Trump is using tariffs as a negotiating tool.
If they lower their tariffs, we will lower our tariffs.
The Radical Left is trying to interfere with negotiations.
The question should be why would the far Left want to interfere with negotiations.
Click to expand...
If you are going to post about this you would be well advised to inform yourself. GB has zero tariffs on the US yet they arbitrarily imposed a 10% tariff on them even after they reached an agreement. Trump wants tarrifs because they generate revenue, not because he wants fair trade.
 
anatta said:
POTUS can use national secutity as a basis for an emergency claim. the Court found that an incorrect avenue. but the court has no ability to enforce it's injunction other then perhaps a lawsuit against the us.e POTUS has been in trade talks with multiple countries and cannot have it;s international trade policies upended by an injunction by a minor administrative court it's a gross violation of nation security emergency power, not just regulating normal economic activity
Click to expand...
Trump doesn’t have the power to act unconstitutionally. This is why he keeps losing in court. There is no emergency. The president doesn’t just get to declare one. The court absolutely has the authority to block him. Which is why they keep doing so.
 
gman said:
A major monkey wrench in Trump’s economic plans. From here on out there will be chaos in NYSE and U.S. budgeting.
Click to expand...
“From here on out”??
Where do you think we’ve been since inauguration?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom