Justice Roberts wrongly, and arbitrarily, conclude tariffs are prohibited under the IEEPA

[johnwk]

From Justice Roberts’ opinion:

(a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B). Absent from this lengthy list of specific powers is any mention of tariffs or duties. Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.

From Justice Kavanaugh's opinion:

For both the Nixon tariffs and the Ford tariffs upheld by this Court in Algonquin, the relevant statutory provisions did not specifically refer to “tariffs” or “duties,” but instead more broadly authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation” or to “adjust the imports.” Therefore, when IEEPA was enacted in 1977 in the wake of the Nixon and Ford tariffs and the Algonquin decision, Congress and the public plainly would have understood that the power to “regulate . . . importation” included tariffs. If Congress wanted to exclude tariffs from IEEPA, it surely would not have enacted the same broad “regulate . . . importation” language that had just been used to justify major American tariffs on foreign imports.”

Having provided a portion of the Majority opinion and a portion of the Minority opinion from LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.. quoted above, the following facts become glaringly obvious.


Congress, by its statutory language did not specifically prohibit nor allow tariffs to be used by a President under IEEPA. But activist Roberts took it upon himself to arbitrarily and whimsically conclude tariffs are prohibited, in spite of tariffs under IEEPA’s predecessor statute, the Trading with the Enemy Act, being used which authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.”

Justice Roberts has certainly expose himself for the notoriously evil activist he is, who uses his office of public trust to impose his personal predilections as the rule of law which he also did when upholding Obamacare, despite an allowance for a national healthcare plan is nowhere to be found in the specification of particulars found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, for which Congress may lawfully tax and spend.

 

[EMH]

John Roberts, an appointment by the W Administration.


There is also the Constitution saying Foreign Policy is Executive Branch, and how in the world tariffs aren't foreign policy is something we should demand the treasonous 6 explain...

 

[Winco]

I'm still not sure why you cult members are supporting this TAX on Americans.

You applaud 'tax cuts' then you also applaud 'tax increases.'


It's the trump world.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Justice Roberts is sketchy. I still remember his ACA ruling nonsense

 

[EMH]

I'm still not sure why you cult members are supporting this TAX on Americans.

You applaud 'tax cuts' then you also applaud 'tax increases.'


It's the trump world.

When you pass a 3rd grade math course, let us know.

 

[shockedcanadian]

I'm still not sure why you cult members are supporting this TAX on Americans.

You applaud 'tax cuts' then you also applaud 'tax increases.'


It's the trump world.

You still do not understand what is going on huh?

Ask why Europe, China and others use tariffs and non-tariff barriers to block the U.S company market access.

You are at war and have been for decades.

 

[WEATHER53]

I'm still not sure why you cult members are supporting this TAX on Americans.

You applaud 'tax cuts' then you also applaud 'tax increases.'


It's the trump world.

There is zero proof it takes the form of a tax

 

[skews13]

From Justice Roberts’ opinion:

(a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B). Absent from this lengthy list of specific powers is any mention of tariffs or duties. Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.

From Justice Kavanaugh's opinion:

For both the Nixon tariffs and the Ford tariffs upheld by this Court in Algonquin, the relevant statutory provisions did not specifically refer to “tariffs” or “duties,” but instead more broadly authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation” or to “adjust the imports.” Therefore, when IEEPA was enacted in 1977 in the wake of the Nixon and Ford tariffs and the Algonquin decision, Congress and the public plainly would have understood that the power to “regulate . . . importation” included tariffs. If Congress wanted to exclude tariffs from IEEPA, it surely would not have enacted the same broad “regulate . . . importation” language that had just been used to justify major American tariffs on foreign imports.”

Having provided a portion of the Majority opinion and a portion of the Minority opinion from LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.. quoted above, the following facts become glaringly obvious.


Congress, by its statutory language did not specifically prohibit nor allow tariffs to be used by a President under IEEPA. But activist Roberts took it upon himself to arbitrarily and whimsically conclude tariffs are prohibited, in spite of tariffs under IEEPA’s predecessor statute, the Trading with the Enemy Act, being used which authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.”

Justice Roberts has certainly expose himself for the notoriously evil activist he is, who uses his office of public trust to impose his personal predilections as the rule of law which he also did when upholding Obamacare, despite an allowance for a national healthcare plan is nowhere to be found in the specification of particulars found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, for which Congress may lawfully tax and spend.

wrong. the court ruled Trump has no power to raise taxes.

He doesn't.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm still not sure why you cult members are supporting this TAX on Americans.

You applaud 'tax cuts' then you also applaud 'tax increases.'


It's the trump world.

They operate as programmed.

 

[JGalt]

There is zero proof it takes the form of a tax

If anything, it's a tax on those countries that export their goods to the US. Taxes are also mandatory, and no US citizen is required to purchase those tariffed goods from other countries.

So not a tax.

 

[Winston]

So. When the penalty was in effect for those that didn't have health insurance, well that was a tax. But, if I pay my car registration late and have to pay a penalty, well then it is a penalty. And a tariff is a tax, but now, well it is not a tax?

 

[1srelluc]

Meh, win some, lose some.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So, one justice says since it wasn’t stipulated by Congress it’s forbidden and another justice says since it wasn’t specifically forbidden by Congress it’s OK.
Sounds like children arguing to their parents.

 

[toobfreak]

From Justice Roberts’ opinion:
(a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B). Absent from this lengthy list of specific powers is any mention of tariffs or duties. Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.

Roberts may not realize it, but 98% of what the Fed does these days is NOT EXPRESSLY SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION. At best, some of it my be inferred.

For both the Nixon tariffs and the Ford tariffs upheld by this Court in Algonquin,

Wow, both Ford and Nixon imposed tariffs, and after citygator flatly claimed all tariffs by a president to be illegal and unconstitutional!

Congress, by its statutory language did not specifically prohibit nor allow tariffs to be used by a President under IEEPA.

Ambiguity in law favors the recipient. Unless the law specifically EXCLUDES an action or application then, Roberts had no right interpreting the act to have intended so.

 

[Cassandro]

John Roberts is a player who writes decisions with an eye down the road. His ACA decision was designed to (unsuccessfully) prevent Obama's reelection, and his Tariff decision was to prohibit future (Democrat) Presidents from declaring "national emergencies" to impose whatever draconian measures they dream up.

He understands that Trump can continue his tariffs under other authorities, and I think he will block any recovery efforts resulting from his decision.

 

[Winston]

If anything, it's a tax on those countries that export their goods to the US. Taxes are also mandatory, and no US citizen is required to purchase those tariffed goods from other countries.

So not a tax.

Holy shit, I thing you just broke a record for most idiot post ever.

First, it is not a tax on those countries. They don't pay them. I mean they seriously don't pay them. The tariffs are paid by the importer. They are due upon receipt of the goods at the port. In most cases, those goods don't leave their point of origination until a bond is posted.

And we can wax and wane all day long about rather they are passed on or rather the exporting country is willing to lower their own margins. The point is a ******* check is stroked to the US Treasury at the port of entry. Paid by the importer. Those tariffs are not "included" in the price.

And what ******* tax is mandatory by your definition. No US citizen is required to buy anything. Boom, therefore sales taxes are not a tax. And better yet, no US citizen is required to work. Boom, therefore income taxes are not a tax. Social Security taxes are not a tax. They are all voluntary.

 

[Dante]

From Justice Roberts’ opinion:

(a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B). Absent from this lengthy list of specific powers is any mention of tariffs or duties. Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.

From Justice Kavanaugh's opinion:

For both the Nixon tariffs and the Ford tariffs upheld by this Court in Algonquin, the relevant statutory provisions did not specifically refer to “tariffs” or “duties,” but instead more broadly authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation” or to “adjust the imports.” Therefore, when IEEPA was enacted in 1977 in the wake of the Nixon and Ford tariffs and the Algonquin decision, Congress and the public plainly would have understood that the power to “regulate . . . importation” included tariffs. If Congress wanted to exclude tariffs from IEEPA, it surely would not have enacted the same broad “regulate . . . importation” language that had just been used to justify major American tariffs on foreign imports.”

Having provided a portion of the Majority opinion and a portion of the Minority opinion from LEARNING RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.. quoted above, the following facts become glaringly obvious.


Congress, by its statutory language did not specifically prohibit nor allow tariffs to be used by a President under IEEPA. But activist Roberts took it upon himself to arbitrarily and whimsically conclude tariffs are prohibited, in spite of tariffs under IEEPA’s predecessor statute, the Trading with the Enemy Act, being used which authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.”

Justice Roberts has certainly expose himself for the notoriously evil activist he is, who uses his office of public trust to impose his personal predilections as the rule of law which he also did when upholding Obamacare, despite an allowance for a national healthcare plan is nowhere to be found in the specification of particulars found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, for which Congress may lawfully tax and spend.

"Justice Roberts wrongly, and arbitrarily, conclude tariffs are prohibited under the IEEPA?"

Really? Do you actually think before you post?

First: look up a definition of "arbitrarily"

Then: "The Retrieval Problem" and " never mind...

Ignorant posts like yours are common and whatever, but when you present as somehow being a credible and informed argument?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

John Roberts is a player who writes decisions with an eye down the road. His ACA decision was designed to (unsuccessfully) prevent Obama's reelection, and his Tariff decision was to prohibit future (Democrat) Presidents from declaring "national emergencies" to impose whatever draconian measures they dream up.

He understands that Trump can continue his tariffs under other authorities, and I think he will block any recovery efforts resulting from his decision.

That’s not his job.

 

[Cassandro]

Ignorant posts like yours are common and whatever, but when you present as somehow being a credible and informed argument?

They are better than yours, which present NO argument.

 

[Winston]

So, one justice says since it wasn’t stipulated by Congress it’s forbidden and another justice says since it wasn’t specifically forbidden by Congress it’s OK.
Sounds like children arguing to their parents.

Kavanaugh is a nutcase. Most of his dissent concerned Nixon's tariffs yet he seems to leave out the fact that those tariffs were only legitimate because they were, first in response to a national emergency, and second, implemented equally across all nations. Just what national emergency is Trump claiming and these tariffs have not been level.