Supreme Court to rule on Trump's tariffs, my guess is

[johnwk]

See: Supreme Court agrees to decide the fate of Trump’s tariffs

Setting the stage for a major ruling on presidential power, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to decide whether a 1977 federal law giving the president certain emergency powers allowed President Donald Trump to levy tariffs on nearly all goods imported into the United States through a series of executive orders.

My guess is, our Supreme Court may very well find, and rightly so, Congress’s power includes overruling any tariff which Trump has imposed, and not our Supreme Court.

The case revolves around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Congress gave the green light allowing the president to “deal with 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”

So, it seems to me it would be Congress, and not our Supreme Court's job, to shut down [by specific legislation] the President's actions if they exceed the policy making authority placed in his hands by Congress.

For the Supreme Court to jump in and stop the President from acting under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act would be meddling with a policy making decision which under the circumstances can only be rightfully made by Congress and the President .

Keep in mind our Supreme Court has correctly stated:

“…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”
_________ELDRED et al. v. A S H C R O F T, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

 

[Blaster]

If SCOTUS rules against Trump it would be a big win for the Democrats but a big loss for American citizens.

 

[Eman623]

I don't think Congress had Trump's wildly chaotic and overarching tariffs in mind when they passed the IEEPA.

Any more than Biden could transfer $500 billion of student debt to the taxpayers because of a perceived emergency.

I hope they will rule it unconstitutional.

 

[kyzr]

I don't think Congress had Trump's wildly chaotic and overarching tariffs in mind when they passed the IEEPA.
Any more than Biden could transfer $500 billion of student debt to the taxpayers because of a perceived emergency.
I hope they will rule it unconstitutional.

My argument is: why can't congress just pass a law supporting president Trump's current tariffs, making them legal?
Stating that future tariff changes are subject to congressional review and approval, to stop Trump from tweeting tariff changes on a whim.

 

[task0778]

The Balance of Trade has been bad for quite a few years, so IMHO it's hard to classify that as an emergency.

 

[johnwk]

I don't think Congress had Trump's wildly chaotic and overarching tariffs in mind when they passed the IEEPA.

.
Policy making decisions concerning tariffs, reside in Congress's hands and our President. Not our Supreme Court

If Congress is not comfortable with the policy making decision Trump has made under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pass by Congress to allow the president to “deal with 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” then Congress may rightfully step in and reverse Trump's policy.

But keep in mind for the Supreme Court to step in and meddle with such policy making decisions would glaringly violate the separation of powers built into our system by the terms of our Constitution.

Keep in mind our Supreme Court has correctly stated:

“…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.” _________ELDRED et al. v. A S H C R O F T, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

 

[cnm]

See: Supreme Court agrees to decide the fate of Trump’s tariffs


My guess is, our Supreme Court may very well find, and rightly so, Congress’s power includes overruling any tariff which Trump has imposed, and not our Supreme Court.

The case revolves around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Congress gave the green light allowing the president to “deal with 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”

So, it seems to me it would be Congress, and not our Supreme Court's job, to shut down [by specific legislation] the President's actions if they exceed the policy making authority placed in his hands by Congress.

For the Supreme Court to jump in and stop the President from acting under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act would be meddling with a policy making decision which under the circumstances can only be rightfully made by Congress and the President .

Keep in mind our Supreme Court has correctly stated:

“…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”
_________ELDRED et al. v. A S H C R O F T, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

Except when it is.

 

[Eman623]

.
Policy making decisions concerning tariffs, reside in Congress's hands and our President. Not our Supreme Court

If Congress is not comfortable with the policy making decision Trump has made under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, pass by Congress to allow the president to “deal with 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” then Congress may rightfully step in and reverse Trump's policy.

But keep in mind for the Supreme Court to step in and meddle with such policy making decisions would glaringly violate the separation of powers built into our system by the terms of our Constitution.

Keep in mind our Supreme Court has correctly stated:

“…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.” _________ELDRED et al. v. A S H C R O F T, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

I would argue that Trump is already violating the separation of powers by misusing the emergency clause of the IEEPA to abrogate Congress' power for himself. Maybe Congress is too supine these days to use the power, but that doesn't mean they can delegate it away.

Could the Congress delegate to the president the power to allocate spending and pass budgets on his own say-so? Even under a legislative "emergency" or "unusual and extraordinary threat"? I don't believe so. And I don't believe they can here either.

The SCOTUS should restore the power back where it belongs.

 

[drudge X]

The court will order Trump to lower tariffs on allies but for adversaries, do as you wish. If the court said to void tariffs altogether, it's gonna be one big ass mess to sort out. That train left. Trump still has other political tools to use if the SC ruled the tariffs are illegal but I highly doubt it.

 

[kyzr]

The court will order Trump to lower tariffs on allies but for adversaries, do as you wish. If the court said to void tariffs altogether, it's gonna be one big ass mess to sort out. That train left. Trump still has other political tools to use if the SC ruled the tariffs are illegal but I highly doubt it.

You are correct sir....it is one big ass mess. I'm hoping that tariffs fall under the umbrella "to regulate commerce".

 

[johnwk]

Supreme Court tariff case involves policy making . . vested exclusively in Congress and President​

Our founders certainly knew the system they created required moral and ethical leaders at the helm of political power. Unfortunately, what has happened over the past several decades is, judges and Justices have decided to ignore the text of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted _ evidence which gives context to its text _ and it is exchanged with a judge’s personal predilections or a vision which a majority of the Supreme Court’s members agree with, who then, in some cases, go on to pretend and delude us that their opinion is within the meaning of our Constitution.


This subjugation of our Constitution began to flare up during the Warren Court of the l960’s and its creation of “tests” to determine what is and what is not constitutional. One such test was the “rationality” test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment or speculation that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allows activist judges and Justices to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, by the explicit terms of our Constitution, to a question having nothing to do with the terms of our Constitution or its documented legislative intent.


Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature, or the terms of our Constitution! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and ignore the separation of powers built into our system of government, not to mention how such action negates the very reason for having a written constitution and elections which are mainly designed to change public policy via appropriate legislation, by and with consent of the people and their elected representatives.


With regard to second guessing legislative acts and the separation of powers, Justice Stone reminds us that:


The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government. U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


We shall soon find out if the separation of powers is observed by a majority on our current Supreme Court, and if it instructs Congress to decide if the President’s tariff policy decision is in harmony with the policy making power they vested in the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

JWK

We are not a capitalist system. Our founders provided for a free enterprise, free market system, a small part of which involves capitalism . . . the investment of monetary assets to achieve a desired goal.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[johnwk]

It seems only too clear to me that Congress, and not our Supreme Court, may rightfully terminate the President’s action via enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval if the President’s policy making decision is not in harmony with the objective for which the intended policy making authority is placed in the hands of the President by Congress under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act,

I think it is contrary to the limits of our Republican Form of Government for unelected Supreme Court Justices to meddle with policy making decisions, when such authority has obviously and rightfully been placed in the hands of the people’s elected representatives (our President, House and Senate members).

To allow a judge or Justice to meddle in policy making decisions negates the very reason for us having a written constitution and elections . . . elections which in this case are intentionally designed to allow for change of foreign public policy, by and with consent of the people through their elected representatives.

JWK

Shall we bend to our Supreme Court usurping legislative functions, setting itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and pretending our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean?

 

[Foxfyre]

My argument is: why can't congress just pass a law supporting president Trump's current tariffs, making them legal?
Stating that future tariff changes are subject to congressional review and approval, to stop Trump from tweeting tariff changes on a whim.

The Constitution already grants Congress power over tariffs. However, through various acts over the years, Congress has delegated more and more ability to use tariffs, especially in issues of national security, to the executive branch.

Given the success of President Trump's tariff policies to rein in economic unfairness exercised by other countries, to rein in the outflow of our manufacturing base and jobs to other countries, and the resulting trade policies--all properly within the executive venue--favorable to the USA, it is unlikely a responsible Congress will interfere with the President's use of tariffs.

But they do have constitutionally authorized power to do so should they choose to exercise it.

 

[kyzr]

The Constitution already grants Congress power over tariffs. However, through various acts over the years, Congress has delegated more and more ability to use tariffs, especially in issues of national security, to the executive branch.

Given the success of President Trump's tariff policies to rein in economic unfairness exercised by other countries, to rein in the outflow of our manufacturing base and jobs to other countries, and the resulting trade policies--all properly within the executive venue--favorable to the USA, it is unlikely a responsible Congress will interfere with the President's use of tariffs.

But they do have constitutionally authorized power to do so should they choose to exercise it.

Agree. But this thread is about the Supreme Court ******* things up by calling Trump's tariff strategies illegal.

That would be bad.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I say end the tariffs! I cant wait for america to be Chinas **** boi again! Why resist it? Aa soon as dems take over again, thats where were headed. Why delay the inevitable lol

 

[Foxfyre]

Agree. But this thread is about the Supreme Court ******* things up by calling Trump's tariff strategies illegal.

That would be bad.

This court has a track record of being meticulous in following the law and original intent. I'm not too worried.

 

[johnwk]

This court has a track record of being meticulous in following the law and original intent. I'm not too worried.

It is Congress’s prerogative to clarify, limit, or possibly augment the President’s authority under the IEEPA
.
It is an irrefutable fact that Congress, by the terms of our Constitution, is granted exclusive power to lay and collect imposts and duties (tariffs), and is also vested with exclusive power to “Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”. As such, ownership of these exclusive powers gives enormous credibility to the argument that Congress, our elected Representatives and Senators, by necessary extension likewise has the power to clarify, limit, or possibly augment the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and not a judge or a majority of Justices on our Supreme Court.

Should a majority on the Supreme Court meddle in the making of foreign policy via Congress’s exclusive powers mentioned above would in effect be negating the very reason of having a written constitution and elections . . . elections which are intentionally intended to accommodate for change in public policy, as opposed to unelected judges and Justices imposing their whims, fancies and personal predilections as the rule of law.

Seems crystal clear to me that our courts are not vested with authority to sit in judgement over policy making decisions, and certainly not foreign policy making decisions.

In regard to Congress’s policy making power carried out through the laying and collecting of taxes, and regulating commerce, let me once again note what our Supreme Court has emphatically concluded with respect to policy making authority “…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”
_________ELDRED et al. v. A S H C R O F T, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

And, Justice Stone reminds all of us that:

“The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

In consideration of the above, it seems more than just obvious that our Supreme Court is obligated by the terms of our Constitution to yield to Congress’s exclusive taxing and regulatory power over commerce, and by extension must confirm it is likewise Congress’s prerogative to clarify, limit, or possibly augment the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

 

[kyzr]

It is Congress’s prerogative to clarify, limit, or possibly augment the President’s authority under the IEEPA
.
It is an irrefutable fact that Congress, by the terms of our Constitution, is granted exclusive power to lay and collect imposts and duties (tariffs), and is also vested with exclusive power to “Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”. As such, ownership of these exclusive powers gives enormous credibility to the argument that Congress, our elected Representatives and Senators, by necessary extension likewise has the power to clarify, limit, or possibly augment the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and not a judge or a majority of Justices on our Supreme Court.

Should a majority on the Supreme Court meddle in the making of foreign policy via Congress’s exclusive powers mentioned above would in effect be negating the very reason of having a written constitution and elections . . . elections which are intentionally intended to accommodate for change in public policy, as opposed to unelected judges and Justices imposing their whims, fancies and personal predilections as the rule of law.

Seems crystal clear to me that our courts are not vested with authority to sit in judgement over policy making decisions, and certainly not foreign policy making decisions.

In regard to Congress’s policy making power carried out through the laying and collecting of taxes, and regulating commerce, let me once again note what our Supreme Court has emphatically concluded with respect to policy making authority “…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”
_________ELDRED et al. v. A S H C R O F T, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

And, Justice Stone reminds all of us that:

“The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)

In consideration of the above, it seems more than just obvious that our Supreme Court is obligated by the terms of our Constitution to yield to Congress’s exclusive taxing and regulatory power over commerce, and by extension must confirm it is likewise Congress’s prerogative to clarify, limit, or possibly augment the President’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

JWK

Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is meant to control and regulate are free to make it mean whatever they want it to mean?

You ignored the various laws that congress delegated authority to the president. Read this:

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48435

Congressional and Presidential Authority to Impose Import Tariffs​

Sections 232, 201, 301, 122, 338, IEEPA

 

[Independent thinker]

See: Supreme Court agrees to decide the fate of Trump’s tariffs


My guess is, our Supreme Court may very well find, and rightly so, Congress’s power includes overruling any tariff which Trump has imposed, and not our Supreme Court.

The case revolves around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which Congress gave the green light allowing the president to “deal with 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”

So, it seems to me it would be Congress, and not our Supreme Court's job, to shut down [by specific legislation] the President's actions if they exceed the policy making authority placed in his hands by Congress.

For the Supreme Court to jump in and stop the President from acting under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act would be meddling with a policy making decision which under the circumstances can only be rightfully made by Congress and the President .

Keep in mind our Supreme Court has correctly stated:

“…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.”
_________ELDRED et al. v. A S H C R O F T, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003)

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the Senate and the House can pass bills to override Trump's tariffs, if Trump signs the legislation into law.