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

[johnwk]

First a president can only execute actions he has been granted by the constitution and law. Raising import taxes on Americans who want to purchase Canadian goods which has no emergency going on requires a law be passed. Not Trump declaring he has poop streaks in his pants so there is suddenly an emergency for him to do whatever he wants.

Secondly, no emergency ever was solved by taxing Americans. An emergency is solved by barring trade totally which the President can do according to the Act.

The Supreme Court is the one to tell us that you are FOS and I am right. Or vice versa.

You deflection from addressing what I wrote is noted.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Relevant reading...


''...Tariffs are nearly as old as the republic and when imposed by Congress — as they have been going back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson — are clearly constitutional. Yet the questions before the court ask if Congress delegated away to the president the power to tax, and if it did, was that delegation constitutional?

The Department of Justice argues that both of those questions should be answered in the affirmative. However, if the court concludes that Congress never gave its taxing powers to the president, then it needn’t reach the second question. It should answer both questions in the negative as there is simply no statute in which Congress has authorized the president to impose tariffs on his own, and under the Constitution, only Congress may impose taxes.

The DOJ argues that the National Emergencies Act of 1976 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 permit the president to address emergencies, and one of the tools of addressing emergencies is to impose tariffs. Does the United States currently have an economic emergency? The president says that the imbalance of trade — American industry and consumers buying more from foreigners than American industry sells to them — is somehow an emergency. It is not. We have had an imbalance of trade since 1934. Moreover, neither of the statutes upon which the president relies for authority to impose tariffs even mentions tariffs by name or implication.

The imbalance of trade is not an emergency under federal law. Not only has it existed continuously since the Great Depression, but federal law defines an emergency as a sudden and unexpected event — like a surprise military attack or a hurricane — that adversely affects the national economy.

If you use up your line of credit on one of your credit cards and you owe more than you currently have in your checking account, that is the functional equivalent of a personal imbalance of trade. Is that the fault of the folks from whom you purchased your goods? Should they be punished or taxed for selling you what you want to buy? Of course not...''



Continued...

Can the President Tax You? - The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity

This week the Supreme Court will begin the process of deciding if the president can impose a sales tax on products and services which originate in foreign countries and are purchased in the United States. The president calls these taxes tariffs. Tariffs are nearly as old as the republic and…

ronpaulinstitute.org

 

[Care4all]

.
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)

Fyi

Over 200 members of Congress and senate, including some republican members, submitted a bicameral amicus brief to the Supreme court....which argued that President Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs was an unlawful overreach that infringed upon Congress's constitutional authority to regulate commerce and levy tariffs.

 

[WEATHER53]

Fundamentally-individual rogue judges at a distinct minority have been interfering with Presudents ability to preside. They issue nationwide sanctions in violation of USSc rulings. The judges know that and they Will let POTUS be President and Preside.

 

[johnwk]

Fyi

Over 200 members of Congress and senate, including some republican members, submitted a bicameral amicus brief to the Supreme court....which argued that President Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs was an unlawful overreach that infringed upon Congress's constitutional authority to regulate commerce and levy tariffs.

And what does that have to do with what I posted and my legal reasoning that it is not the Supreme Court's job, 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 exclusive 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.

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. In addition the Supreme Court would, in effect, be negating the very reason of having 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.
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)

 

[Care4all]

And what does that have to do with what I posted and my legal reasoning that it is not the Supreme Court's job

You mentioned that Congress should be chiming in..... it was up to them kinda thing imo....I simply showed that a couple of hundred did chime in and say, what Trump did, was wrong....

 

[Care4all]

And what does that have to do with what I posted and my legal reasoning that it is not the Supreme Court's job, 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 exclusive 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.

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. In addition the Supreme Court would, in effect, be negating the very reason of having 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.
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)

No one is trying to remove an unwise law.

The law Trump falsely claims Congress gives him the authority to do what he's doing, IEEPA, makes no mention of levying tariffs! No authority to levy tariffs is given.

 

[johnwk]

No one is trying to remove an unwise law.

The law Trump falsely claims Congress gives him the authority to do what he's doing, IEEPA, makes no mention of levying tariffs! No authority to levy tariffs is given.

It is not the Supreme Court's job, to clarify, limit, or possibly augment the President’s authority under the IEEPA, and which you remark that "The law Trump falsely claims Congress gives him the authority to do what he's doing,"

 

[johnwk]

You mentioned that Congress should be chiming in.....

Bullshit. What I actually point out is:

"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 exclusive 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."

 

[Care4all]

Bullshit. What I actually point out is:

"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 exclusive 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."

IEEPA law written by Congress does not give the President the power to levy tariffs as Trump falsely claims. Tariffs are not mentioned at all by congress in IEEPA. We have a constitutional right to redress our concerns on that....in court!

 

[Care4all]

It is not the Supreme Court's job, to clarify, limit, or possibly augment the President’s authority under the IEEPA, and which you remark that "The law Trump falsely claims Congress gives him the authority to do what he's doing,"

Bullcrap! Trump made up out of whole cloth that Congress gave him their constitutional power to levy tariffs across the board on every nation in the world. It is in COURT that we the people can redress this....

 

[FoghornLeghorn]

No one is trying to remove an unwise law.

The law Trump falsely claims Congress gives him the authority to do what he's doing, IEEPA, makes no mention of levying tariffs! No authority to levy tariffs is given.

You'll parrot anything to serve your party masters.

 

[kyzr]

IEEPA law written by Congress does not give the President the power to levy tariffs as Trump falsely claims. Tariffs are not mentioned at all by congress in IEEPA. We have a constitutional right to redress our concerns on that....in court!

IEEPA does give the president the power to "regulate" trade, the court needs to decide if that includes tariffs.

 

[Care4all]

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

Levying tariffs is not regulating commerce. Tariffs tax Americans, regulating commerce, does not....

 

[johnwk]

IEEPA law written by Congress does not give the President the power to levy tariffs as Trump falsely claims. Tariffs are not mentioned at all by congress in IEEPA. We have a constitutional right to redress our concerns on that....in court!

Your naysaying and unsubstantiated opinions are not in harmony with the facts which you quoted.

JWK

We are not a capitalist system as falsely asserted by Fox News personalities. 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.

 

[kyzr]

Levying tariffs is not regulating commerce. Tariffs tax Americans, regulating commerce, does not....

We'll soon see if the majority of the USSC agrees with you.
From his questioning Kavanaugh seems to think that "regulating" does include tariffs.

 

[johnwk]

IEEPA does give the president the power to "regulate" trade, the court needs to decide if that includes tariffs.

Just for the record, historical evidence confirms our founders used "tariffs" to regulate "commerce", e.g., see: CHAP. II.--An act for laying a Duty on Goods, Wares, and Merchandises imported into the United States (a) July 4th, 1789 (enter 146 in the box at the top of the page to get to "Section 5":


Section 5:

“…a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof.”

This gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably paved the way for America’s ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Sad to say the last time I visited the docks in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen area where I grew up, I was very saddened that I could no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seemed to be foreign owned foreign built vessels…an irrefutable sign of America’s decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and “globalists”

Yes, Trump is absolutely correct that “tariff’ is a beautiful word to those who support an America First policy

JWK

". . . a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures to object of revenue, it shall not be oppressive to our constituents . . . " Madison, April 8th, 1789,.