The Dissent in the Tariffs Case Had it Right

[task0778]

U.S. presidents have commonly imposed or signed into law tariffs as a means to regulate importation, protect domestic industries, raise revenue, address trade imbalances, retaliate against foreign practices, or safeguard national security

page 112 Kavanaugh dissent
""throughout American history, Presidents have commonly imposed tariffs as a means to “regulate . . . importation.”"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf

Herbert Hoover (1930): Signed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which dramatically increased tariffs on over 20,000 imported products to safeguard agriculture and industry during the early Great Depression, though it provoked international retaliation.

Gerald Ford (1970s): Raised oil import tariffs by 60% under proclaimed authority, citing national security needs to regulate petroleum importation.

Richard Nixon (1971): Imposed a temporary 10% import surcharge on many goods during a balance-of-payments crisis, using emergency powers to regulate imports.

Ronald Reagan (1980s): Imposed 100% tariffs on certain Japanese electronics to punish violations of trade agreements and protect U.S. markets.

George W. Bush (2000s): Imposed up to 30% steel tariffs on imports from nearly all countries to protect the domestic steel industry.

Everything a president does has to be tied to a law that says he can do it. He doesn't get to create new laws and he's supposed to follow the meaning if the law if there is some ambiguity, which there usually is. So - I don't know what law any of these presidents used to impose their tariffs and I don't know if their actions were challenged in court. Remember, somebody has to challenge a president's actions via a lawsuit, the Courts do not arbitrarily decide something is unconstitutional until there is a legal challenge.

Let's be clear about this: today's ruling does not say that Trump cannot impose his tariffs. Period. What they said was he couldn't do it using the legislation he based his Executive Order on. So - Trump is going to try another way and base his tariffs on a different law. Which will no doubt be challenged in court again and we'll go through all this again.

 

[task0778]

Trump already planned for this. The SC is not gonna reverse the tariffs already paid. That would be major clusterfuck. Either way, tariffs aren’t going anywhere.

I believe for the time being his existing tariffs were stopped. As in ended. So, he's going to impose new and different tariffs using a different law to base his action on. Whether or not tariffs that were already paid was not included in the court's decision, I don't know how that is going to work out.

BUT - there's no telling whether or not his new tariffs will be challenged in court and upheld or not. I'm sure we'll read many opinions on that one way or the other. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the democrats challenge his tariffs again, and it'll have to wind its way through the court system all over again.

 

[johnwk]

Yep. Tariffs are NOT going away.

In response to the Supreme Court's absurd tariff ruling, Trump immediately announced a new 10% global tariff on all imports.

 

[johnwk]

Let's be clear about this: today's ruling does not say that Trump cannot impose his tariffs.

End of story. Under various powers delegated by Congress to the President, he is authorized to impose tariffs.

If there is an issue with any tariffs imposed by the President, it is up to Congress, and only Congress, to step in and resolve the issue.​

Roberts needs to keep his meddling nose out of the Presidents’ delegated use of tariffs which advance the general welfare of the United States.​

 

[Zincwarrior]

, with tariffs having been imposed by dozens of presidents before him.

Except thats a lie. Only Congress can do it or delegate that authority.

 

[johnwk]

Except thats a lie. Only Congress can do it or delegate that authority.

Nowhere in the Supreme Court’s ruling has it asserted Congress is not authorized to delegate the use of tariffs to the President.

In reviewing the various Acts adopted by Congress authorizing the President to impose tariffs to advance the general welfare of the United States, President Trump is acting well within the tariff powers delegated to the president by Congress. End of story. The Supreme Court is not vested with policy making decision power of this nature.

Roberts needs to keep his meddling nose out of the Presidents’ delegated use of tariffs which advance the general welfare of the United States. If there is an issue with any tariffs imposed by the President, it is up to Congress, and only Congress, to step in and resolve the issue.

 

[InstantOn]

What would you call someone who wants to pay more for whatever?
Damn stupid would be my call.

 

[TNHarley]

James Madison.

James Madison proposed an​

amendment clarifying that the President had the power “ ‘to​

execute such other powers’ ” as were “ ‘delegated by the na-​

tional Legislature,’ ” so long as the delegated powers were​

“ ‘ “not Legislative nor Judiciary in their nature.” ’ ” 1 Rec-​

ords of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 67 (M. Farrand​

ed. 1966). ​

​

Thus, in Madison’s view, some of Congress’s pow-​

ers were “not Legislative” and could be “delegated” to the​

President. Ibid. Madison’s proposal was rejected after oth-​

ers argued that it was unnecessary. Ibid. ​

​

Madison agreed that the purpose of the proposed amendment was only to​

“prevent doubts and misconstructions.” Ibid. Nobody dis-​

puted that Madison stated the correct scope of the nondele-​

gation doctrine. Ibid.; see also McConnell 332 (“[W]e can​

infer [from Madison’s motion] that the framers understood​

that Congress would be able to delegate its royal preroga-​

tive powers back to the President”).​

Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs)

www.scotusblog.com

So, the constitution does not say anything of the sort.

 

[excalibur]

So, the constitution does not say anything of the sort.

Nobody disputed that Madison stated the correct scope of the nondele-
gation doctrine. Ibid.; see also McConnell 332

“[W]e can infer [from Madison’s motion] that the framers understood
that Congress would be able to delegate its royal prerogative powers back to the President”).​

 

[TNHarley]

Nobody disputed that Madison stated the correct scope of the nondele-​

gation doctrine. Ibid.; see also McConnell 332​

​

“[W]e can infer [from Madison’s motion] that the framers understood​

that Congress would be able to delegate its royal prerogative powers back to the President”).​

So his amendment got shot down, it isnt in the constitution, and you are still arguing with me?

 

[excalibur]

So his amendment got shot down, it isnt in the constitution, and you are still arguing with me?

Madison’s proposal was rejected after others argued that it was unnecessary.​

 

[TNHarley]

Madison’s proposal was rejected after others argued that it was unnecessary.​

So, again, its not in the constitution.

 

[TNHarley]

So, again, its not in the constitution.

And for the record, jefferson was against delegating legislative powers to another branch. Guess what tariffs are?

 

[excalibur]

So, again, its not in the constitution.

Because the delegates all said it was unnecessary. You should understand what that means.

 

[TNHarley]

Because the delegates all said it was unnecessary. You should understand what that means.

Look at the post above.

 

[excalibur]

Look at the post above.

Unnecessary, because the power was already assumed.

 

[TNHarley]

Unnecessary, because the power was already assumed.

Indeed it was. Thats why its an enumerated, legislative power, of congress.
You bring up jefferson, but he didnt want congress delegating its legislative powers to another branch. Tariffs are legislative.
Just because they spoke of something, does not mean it is constitutional.
Delegation doctrine is not in the constitution. Anywhere. But it does in fact say tariffs are strictly congresses job. Because its legislative.