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

[johnwk]

Oh come on. Kavanaugh's was a joke, and Thomas is no better. He always attempts to hide his shit in some historical revisionism.

Historical revisionism?

The most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is to adhere to "legislative intent" as opposed to revising the beliefs and intentions under which a provision of the Constitution was agreed to by the States and people therein, and then enforcing that "revisionism".

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

In general if it’s not prohibited then it is permitted. It’s a lib loon attempt to change language and word meanings Again,

 

[johnwk]

In general if it’s not prohibited then it is permitted. It’s a lib loon attempt to change language and word meanings Again,

What is troubling about Roberts’ written opinion is, he unwittingly revealed in his written opinion why he intruded upon Congress’s exclusive authority to restrain a president who may have abused the delegation of authority granted by Congress to a president under IEEPA. Justice Roberts writes:

"Against this backdrop of clear and limited delegations, the Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs. On this reading, moreover, the President is unconstrained by the significant procedural limitations in other tariff statutes and free to issue a dizzying array of modifications at will. See supra, at 3. All it takes to unlock that extraordinary power is a Presidential declaration of emergency, which the Government asserts is unreviewable. Brief for Federal Parties 42. And the only way of restraining the exercise of that power is a veto-proof majority in Congress. See 50 U. S. C. §1622(a)(1) (requiring a “joint resolution” “enacted into law” to terminate a national emergency). That view, if credited, would “represent a ‘transformative expansion’” of the President’s authority over tariff policy . . . “

As one can plainly see, Congress’s reserved power to deal with an abuse of authority delegated to a president is by a “joint resolution”, terminating the president’s asserted national emergency. But Roberts is uncomfortable with Congress’s legislated remedy which, in Roberts opinion, would allow a ‘transformative expansion’” of the President’s authority over tariff policy.

 

[Winston]

Historical revisionism?

The most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is to adhere to "legislative intent" as opposed to revising the beliefs and intentions under which a provision of the Constitution was agreed to by the States and people therein, and then enforcing that "revisionism".

Get real here. Do you think a single one of the founders would have supported the executive branch unilaterally imposing a tax?

 

[Care4all]

Historical revisionism?

The most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is to adhere to "legislative intent" as opposed to revising the beliefs and intentions under which a provision of the Constitution was agreed to by the States and people therein, and then enforcing that "revisionism".

IEEPA was created in1977 to reign in Presidential power during peace, and prevent presidents from initiating tariffs as Nixon controversially did in 1971.

That is the historical Context.

No president since IEEPA's creation in 1977 has used this act for universal tariffs as Trump tried to do....that alone, should tell you something.

 

[eagle7-31]

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.

Not the first time the court did this. Plessy v Ferguson in 1896 contradicted the 14th amendment.

 

[johnwk]

IEEPA was created in1977 to reign in Presidential power during peace, and prevent presidents from initiating tariffs as Nixon controversially did in 1971.

That is the historical Context.

No president since IEEPA's creation in 1977 has used this act for universal tariffs as Trump tried to do....that alone, should tell you something.

Our esteemed and learned Chief Justice Roberts may have skipped his early American History classes.

For example, Justice Roberts writes:


"While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation. Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly."

The fact is, our founders use of tariffs at our water’s edge was to regulate in such a manner as to encourage America’s domestic industries, see, The Tonnage Act of 1789 which levied taxes on the capacity of ships entering U.S. ports, favoring American-owned vessels over foreign ones to support America's domestic maritime industry.

The above documentation confirms what Justice Thomas wrote:


"I join JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s principal dissent in full. As he explains, the Court’s decision today cannot be justified as a matter of statutory interpretation. Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” 50 U. S. C. §1702(a)(1)(B). Throughout American history, the authority to “regulate importation” has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports. Post, at 9–13, 22–29 (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting). The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publicized duties on imports were upheld based on identical language. Post, at 14–22. The statute that the President relied on therefore authorized him to impose the duties on imports at issue in these cases. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH makes clear that the Court errs in concluding otherwise."

 

[g5000]

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.

Donald Trump has abused the word "emergency" to such an extent as to render the word meaningless.

He is a megalomaniac, and since his cowardly lickspittles in Congress abdicated their responsibility to stop him, it was left to the Courts to do it.

 

[Winston]

Our esteemed and learned Chief Justice Roberts may have skipped his early American History classes.

For example, Justice Roberts writes:


"While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation. Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly."

The fact is, our founders use of tariffs at our water’s edge was to regulate in such a manner as to encourage America’s domestic industries, see, The Tonnage Act of 1789 which levied taxes on the capacity of ships entering U.S. ports, favoring American-owned vessels over foreign ones to support America's domestic maritime industry.

The above documentation confirms what Justice Thomas wrote:


"I join JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s principal dissent in full. As he explains, the Court’s decision today cannot be justified as a matter of statutory interpretation. Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” 50 U. S. C. §1702(a)(1)(B). Throughout American history, the authority to “regulate importation” has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports. Post, at 9–13, 22–29 (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting). The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publicized duties on imports were upheld based on identical language. Post, at 14–22. The statute that the President relied on therefore authorized him to impose the duties on imports at issue in these cases. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH makes clear that the Court errs in concluding otherwise."

******* amateur legal analysis that ain't worth two shits.

 

[Winco]

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

Mr Conspiracy Theory says WHAT?

There is zero proof it takes the form of a tax

It's called "An Import Tax" for a reason. So Simple, but you know...CULT says.

An import tax (also known as customs duty or tariff) is
a fee imposed by a government on goods brought in from other countries. Collected by customs authorities, these taxes regulate trade, generate revenue, and protect domestic industries by making imported goods more expensive.

 

[johnwk]

******* amateur legal analysis that ain't worth two shits.

The majority opinion in LEARNING RESOURCES, INC. v. TRUMP, is based upon a factual error.

Roberts was in total error when alleging “While taxes may accomplish regulatory ends, it does not follow that the power to regulate includes the power to tax as a means of regulation. Indeed, when Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly.”

The truth is, our founders’ used tariffs at our water’s edge to regulate in such a manner as to encourage America’s domestic industries, e.g., see The Tonnage Act of 1789 which levied taxes on the capacity of ships entering U.S. ports, favoring American-owned vessels over foreign ones to support America’s domestic maritime industry.


The bottom line is, the above documentation confirms what Justice Thomas wrote:

“I join JUSTICE KAVANAUGH’s principal dissent in full. As he explains, the Court’s decision today cannot be justified as a matter of statutory interpretation. Congress authorized the President to “regulate . . . importation.” 50 U. S. C. §1702(a)(1)(B). Throughout American history, the authority to “regulate importation” has been understood to include the authority to impose duties on imports. Post, at 9–13, 22–29 (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting). The meaning of that phrase was beyond doubt by the time that Congress enacted this statute, shortly after President Nixon’s highly publicized duties on imports were upheld based on identical language. Post, at 14–22. The statute that the President relied on therefore authorized him to impose the duties on imports at issue in these cases. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH makes clear that the Court errs in concluding otherwise.”