Tariff ruling.

[EMH]

Yes.

If Congress passed such legislation, it would be legal.

Good luck.

WW

Let's total up the financial loss to America by this ruling and demand Congress enact Trump's tariff policy as is with a referendum in the future to do/change it the way SCOTUS wants.

But if America loses trillions of dollars because they won't codify Trump's tariffs, there should be a lot of outrage at them for doing that...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Trump could even use SH since he claims unfair tariffs.

View attachment 1221388

Smoot-Hawley Act passed in 1930 didn't cause the market crash of 1929, but it depended and prolonged the Great Depression for years with the result being it took the build up for WW II to pull us out.

WW

 

[mudwhistle]

Their decision was good for upholding the Constitution and good for we the people.

Trump can still raise tariffs, but he simply needs to do it with the help and approval of Congress.

No taxation,
without representation.

Once again....you're talking nonsense.

 

[EMH]

Smoot-Hawley Act passed in 1930 didn't cause the market crash of 1929, but it depended and prolonged the Great Depression for years with the result being it took the build up for WW II to pull us out.

WW

Those were sweeping rigid rules.

Trump has done well viewing trade as based on how the other country is treating us, which is right. The Constitution was written in a period where foreign trade was a small fraction compared to now.

The one size fits all is BS. Countries differ. But all should treat us and our products like we treat their's.

 

[kyzr]

Smoot-Hawley Act passed in 1930 didn't cause the market crash of 1929, but it depended and prolonged the Great Depression for years with the result being it took the build up for WW II to pull us out. WW

I know Smoot-Hawley has a bad rep, but it gives the president the legal authority to use tariffs.

 

[pknopp]

So if the Congress agrees to keep the current Trump tariffs by codifying them, it would be legal?

Yes, but Trump then couldn't just change them willy nilly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I know Smoot-Hawley has a bad rep, but it gives the president the legal authority to use tariffs.

Follow on legislation in the 1930's, 1960's, and 1970's basically rendered Smoot-Hawley moot.

WW

 

[0311]

As MAGA MAGGOTS twist themselves into pretzels to defend Dementia Don, try to remember this.

Article I. Section VIII. Clause I. invests the Legislative Branch NOT the Executive Branch with the power to control the purse. Tariffs are purview of the Legislative, NOT the Executive Branch. Donnie Boy over stepped his authority. NO amount MAGA MAGGOT spin will change that.

 

[skews13]

I got the impression He was a little pissed.

Wait until November.

 

[YoursTruly]

Just released. Trump can not issue tariffs.

Best link I can provide.

Homepage

Independent News & Analysis of the U.S Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

SC ruled Trump was breaking the law. I agree.

So what does he do? Continues to break the law.

He's trying to get himself impeached next year.

 

[Luckyone]

Just released. Trump can not issue tariffs.

Best link I can provide.

Homepage

Independent News & Analysis of the U.S Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Live updates: Trump vows new tariffs after 'deeply disappointing' Supreme Court decision​

The Supreme Court's decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs but invalidates those implemented using a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

This is a blow to Trump, given that it "limits" his ability to impose tariffs,

One thing he did say that is truly pure ego. He said "the Supreme Court cannot stop me from doing what I want. I can do anything I please"

That is certainly Dictatorial talk!

 

[mudwhistle]

SC ruled Trump was breaking the law. I agree.

So what does he do? Continues to break the law.

He's trying to get himself impeached next year.

That's not even close to what they ruled.

 

[YoursTruly]

Small Business Owners Celebrate Supreme Court Striking Down Trump's Tariffs​

The battle against the president's so-called reciprocal tariffs is won, but the war for free trade and a stable business environment continues.​

 

[mudwhistle]

Live updates: Trump vows new tariffs after 'deeply disappointing' Supreme Court decision​

The Supreme Court's decision does not affect all of Trump's tariffs but invalidates those implemented using a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

This is a blow to Trump, given that it "limits" his ability to impose tariffs,

One thing he did say that is truly pure ego. He said "the Supreme Court cannot stop me from doing what I want. I can do anything I please"

That is certainly Dictatorial talk!

 

[DonGlock26]

 

[mudwhistle]

 

[White 6]

Partial Cleanup of Off-Topic Comments and responses to Off-Topic Comment. The thread Topic is the Supreme Court Tariff ruling.

Stay on Topic Or leave the thread.

 

[busybee01]

The Supreme Court has no right to override the constitution.

End of story.

Trump is trying to circumvent the Constitution,

 

[Care4all]

Once again....you're talking nonsense.

Yes, there are other ways congress provided the president with pathways to issue tariffs. This law he chose to use in the across the board, knee jerk, haphazard manner he was issuing tariffs as a negotiating tool, was not constitutional and was unlawful.

But in a more structured and individual one on one Country approach could be acceptable, as long as Trump is meeting the specific congressional requirements for the president to issue tariffs that Congress legislated.

 

[busybee01]

A terrible ruling. Completely wrong.

A win for consumers. Completely correct.