U.S. trade court judge tells Trump to return tariff money. Ruling is absurd!

[johnwk]

Them he should have used one of those ways.

He fucked up.

So?

The majority Supreme Court opinion asserted Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 are unconstitutional. They did not provide an opinion if they are likewise unconstitutional under:


Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

If they are constitutional under one or more of the above Acts of Congress, then the tariffs of lawful.

Ignorance of the law is the Petitions' problem.

 

[candycorn]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

The high court ruled that tarriffs can’t be imposed under IEEPA.

Ignorance of current events is the OP’s problem.

 

[Crepitus]

So?

The majority Supreme Court opinion asserted Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 are unconstitutional. They did not provide an opinion if they are likewise unconstitutional under:


Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

If they are constitutional under one or more of the above Acts of Congress, then the tariffs of lawful.

Ignorance of the law is the Petitions' problem.

That's cool, he can use one of those going forward.

He can't claim to use those for things that already happened though.

All that money was collected illegally.

That's what we call "theft".

 

[Care4all]

lol.. US trade judge tells Trump to return the loot.

Why don’t leftists demand companies to return the money to consumers and lower the price drastically?

Once the importer who paid the tariffs at the port of entry gets their refund, then they will refund their Retail Store customer for what they paid the importer in higher prices. Then the retailer will lower their retail price on the products and offer the product even lower on a special sale on those reduced in cost products....

It'll reach the consumer eventually, but not as a refund to those who bought an item previously, but for future purchases.

 

[johnwk]

That's cool, he can use one of those going forward.

He can't claim to use those for things that already happened though.

All that money was collected illegally.

That's what we call "theft".

We are not talking about "cool". We are talking about the majority opinion in Trump's tariff case.

The majority Supreme Court opinion asserted Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 are unconstitutional.


They did not provide an opinion if they are likewise unconstitutional under:


Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

If they are constitutional under one or more of the above Acts of Congress, then the tariffs are lawful. Are they not?

Ignorance of the law is the Petitions' problem.

 

[BackAgain]

Ahaha this is truly the dumbest administration in American history

Obviously, you’ve already forgotten Potato and Peanut among numerous others.

 

[Augustine_]

Obviously, you’ve already forgotten Potato and Peanut among numerous others.

Better a potato or peanut over your pedophile 100%

 

[BackAgain]

Better a potato or peanut over your pedophile 100%

Not a shred of support for your defamatory bullshit.

Typical you. All lies all the time. 100%.

 

[johnwk]

Once the importer who paid the tariffs at the port of entry gets their refund, then they will refund their Retail Store customer for what they paid the importer in higher prices. Then the retailer will lower their retail price on the products and offer the product even lower on a special sale on those reduced in cost products....

It'll reach the consumer eventually, but not as a refund to those who bought an item previously, but for future purchases.

All of which seems irrelevant.

Correct me if I am wrong. Is it not a fact that ignorance of the law excuses no one? Additionally, is not also a fact that law-abiding actions remain lawful, regardless of the actor's knowledge?

Seems to me those who paid Trump's tariffs, if the tariffs are legal under the other Acts of Congress, then the petitioners have no real legal leg to stand on.

 

[Augustine_]

Not a shred of support for your defamatory bullshit.

Typical you. All lies all the time. 100%.

^ Bro thinks its controversial to like peanuts and potatoes more than pedophiles

 

[meaner gene]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

Re: Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Do you know anything about law?

It's like payments made on a judgement voided with prejudice.

It requires all levies be stopped, and all funds collected be returned.

The different tariffs can be immediately imposed, but can't be imposed retroactively. Hence the collected tariffs have to be returned, while any new or alternate taxes being imposed, but having no support for previously collected tariffs.

 

[meaner gene]

All of which seems irrelevant.

Correct me if I am wrong. Is it not a fact that ignorance of the law excuses no one? Additionally, is not also a fact that law-abiding actions remain lawful, regardless of the actor's knowledge?

Seems to me those who paid Trump's tariffs, if the tariffs are legal under the other Acts of Congress, then the petitioners have no real legal leg to stand on.

Over 1,000 lawsuits were filed, arguing IEEPA tariffs were illegal.

They weren't arguing any other tariff illegal, thus that they could be tariffed under different authority is a given.
But even Trumps alternate authority is limited to 15% and 150 days, which far exceeded what was imposed, so even if they could be applied retroactively, refunds would still be in order.

 

[johnwk]

Re: Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Do you know anything about law?

I certainly do.

Trump's tariffs appear to be intra vires (within power).


The question is, did the Trump Administration act beyond power authorized under other Acts of Congress, other than the IEEPA?

If Trump’s tariffs are in fact legal under one or more Congressional Acts other than the IEEPA, then Trump's actions are law-abiding actions, regardless of Trump’s knowledge or beliefs.

With respect to the lawfulness of an action regardless of the actor's [Trump's] knowledge or beliefs, such a question, as I remember when studying the law many years ago, falls within the general principle that if a statute provides the necessary power, the action is intra vires (within power).

Seems to me those who paid Trump's tariffs [current petitioners seeking to recoup the tariffs they paid], if the tariffs are legal under the other Acts of Congress (other than the IEEPA), then the petitioners have no real legal leg to stand on, that is, if Trump's tariffs are legal under one or more Congressional Acts other than the IEEPA.

 

[meaner gene]

I certainly do.

Trump's tariffs appear to be intra vires (within power).


The question is, did the Trump Administration act beyond power authorized under other Acts of Congress, other than the IEEPA?

If Trump’s tariffs are in fact legal under one or more Congressional Acts other than the IEEPA, then Trump's actions are law-abiding actions, regardless of Trump’s knowledge or beliefs.

With respect to the lawfulness of an action regardless of the actor's [Trump's] knowledge or beliefs, such a question, as I remember when studying the law many years ago, falls within the general principle that if a statute provides the necessary power, the action is intra vires (within power).

Seems to me those who paid Trump's tariffs [current petitioners seeking to recoup the tariffs they paid], if the tariffs are legal under the other Acts of Congress (other than the IEEPA), then the petitioners have no real legal leg to stand on, that is, if Trump's tariffs are legal under one or more Congressional Acts other than the IEEPA.

That another half dozen tariffs are legal, doesn't change that the ONE tariff that Trump used, was illegal.

You can't support an illegal act, by a different legal authority.

Such as you can't confiscate a persons house, because he drove DUI, allowing you to confiscate his car.

 

[BackAgain]

^ Bro thinks its controversial to like peanuts and potatoes more than pedophiles

^ Scumbag lies as if his life depends on it.

You’re so retarded Auggie asshole that you think making bogus claims about pedophiles helps make your point.

Nah.

Your fantasies remain mere fantasies.

 

[Crepitus]

We are not talking about "cool". We are talking about the majority opinion in Trump's tariff case.

The majority Supreme Court opinion asserted Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 are unconstitutional.


They did not provide an opinion if they are likewise unconstitutional under:


Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

If they are constitutional under one or more of the above Acts of Congress, then the tariffs are lawful. Are they not?

Ignorance of the law is the Petitions' problem.

Right, so he can try those going forward, as I have said over and over.

But the tariffs he used the emergency powers act for are now null and void, determined to be illegal, and the money ordered to be returned from those it was stolen from.

I've tried to use small words, I've tried to say the same thing each time I replied to your nonsense so it is consistent, what's the issue here?

Why can you not understand this?

 

[meaner gene]

Right, so he can try those going forward, as I have said over and over.

But the tariffs he used the emergency powers act for are now null and void, determined to be illegal, and the money ordered to be returned from those it was stolen from.

I've tried to use small words, I've tried to say the same thing each time I replied to your nonsense so it is consistent, what's the issue here?

Why can you not understand this?

He's using disproven talking points, and not law.
The reason Trump used IEEPA instead of the other tariffs, is that they require they make an economic determination (requiring documented proof and takings weeks or months) before they could impose them.

And that determination can't change without a new determination. Which meant Trump can't change them at his whim.

 

[johnwk]

Right, so he can try those going forward, as I have said over and over.

If they are constitutional under one or more of the Acts I mentioned, other than under the IEEPA, then the tariffs are lawful, intra vires, (within the government’s power). The petitions seeking to recoup the tariffs they paid, would have to prove they are not intra vires (within the government’s power) if the Trump Administration appeals on such grounds.

 

[Dragonlady]

.
See: Judge orders U.S. Customs to process refunds on illegal Trump tariffs

"Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade in Manhattan ordered the government to finalize the cost of bringing millions of shipments into the U.S. without assessing a tariff, according to a court filing. He ordered the refunds to be made with interest."

Why should Trump’s tariffs be refunded to anyone when they are permissible under one or more of the following statutes?

Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962;

Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974;

Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974;

And, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.


Ignorance of the law is petitioner's problem.

Trump didn't use any of those laws to apply his tariffs, so no, his tariffs weren't legal, and the money has to be returned with interest.

Ignorance of the law is TRUMP'S problem.

 

[Dragonlady]

If they are constitutional under one or more of the Acts I mentioned, other than under the IEEPA, then the tariffs are lawful, intra vires, (within the government’s power). The petitions seeking to recoup the tariffs they paid, would have to prove they are not intra vires (within the government’s power) if the Trump Administration appeals on such grounds.

WRONG on every score. All of those laws require CONGRESS to levy the tariffs. The power of the purse is a Congressional power, not an executive power.

Trump's tariffs are illegal. The Supreme Court said so.