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

[JackOfNoTrades]

Court's aren't supposed to be activist playgrounds for leftist rogue judge's with political agendas either, but here we are.

It's a ruling. I didn't hear you complaining when the courts shot down Biden's student loan end run.

 

[struth]

Courts push back. They make rulings. That's what they are supposed to do. Not roll over and accept the decision of fascist dictators.

Well they aren’t suppose to push back they are suppose to simply rule of the law

Not push back against people or policy they don’t like

How fascist of you

 

[beagle9]

It's a ruling. I didn't hear you complaining when the courts shot down Biden's student loan end run.

Some rulings are no brainers idiot. At some point the act is so ridiculous that even a court can't take the chance to go along with it.

The case with Trump's tariffs isn't that case. The court messed up.

 

[johnwk]

John, trump did appeal this Court's ruling to the supreme court. The SC ruled against Trump and sent the case back to the lower court to finish it....which this judge did.

And the importer did not owe the tariffs elsewhere. There are no tariffs elsewhere under 232 for the companies suing for their money back so I don't get what you are trying to say...???

Stop making crap up. Our Supreme Court has not ruled on Judge Richard Eaton's ruling, which the Trump Administration plans to appeal.

 

[Meister]

The Supremes have already ruled, Dark Man.
Skippy..owes the cash.

The SC did not order Trump to refund.

 

[johnwk]

What makes you think Trump's chaotic and bombastic issuance of tariffs across the board universally, changing in percent by the day causing instability in our businesses here, is going to help us with trade imbalance on the different individual items causing issue, per country?

The only instability you mention is that created by our FIFTH COLUMN activist judges and Justices who apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and legislation lawfully passed by Congress

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

 

[Crepitus]

But "Crickets" from you leftist at all the theft (the international trade community abroad), had conducted or committed against America for the past 40+year's eh ???

Ride around in this country and just look at the shut down industrial industries where you'll see major industrial buildings and facilities sitting and rottening away (falling down), where we were tricked into giving up our jobs and factories for this idea of sending our industries abroad, and to do so for cheaper product's made by slave labor out of sight of our own regulators, and out of sight of our long time law's that prohibited such unsafe conditions, and that prohibited unsafe environmental conditions.... Due to the lack of regulations or regulatory rules for the processes, and then the getting rid of the hazardous waste in a proper way that cost extra in the deal, America then cut deals with the devil.

China was reported as one of the most polluted country in the world back in the day, but funny how that type of reporting was shut down over the year's here. As we became more corrupt and excepted of the situation because of the wealth being generated off of it all, and yep for the one percent in this nation... It is that the blind eye was then turned to it all.

Trump is trying to correct the entire problem, but of course the brainwashed left has been activated against him, and wildly the rino's that were prospering have been undermining Trump as well.

What "theft" is that?

When other countries lay a tariff on US goods we don't pay that, just like they didn't pay tRump tariffs.

 

[Crepitus]

The only instability you mention is that created by our FIFTH COLUMN activist judges and Justices who apply the Humpty Dumpty theory of language to our Constitution and legislation lawfully passed by Congress

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master-that’s all.”

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records _ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text _ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

In other words, republicans.

 

[johnwk]

Facts vs. opinion regarding Trump and tariffs

.
A review of the following Congressional delegations of powers to our Executive Office appears likely to allow the tariffs imposed by Trump.


Tariff Act of 1930, Section 338, which allows tariffs of up to 50% on countries that disadvantage U.S. commerce.


Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, which authorizes the President to negotiate trade deals and adjust tariff rates by up to 50% without further congressional action.


Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows the President to adjust imports that "threaten to impair the national security".


Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows temporary tariffs (up to 50%) to protect domestic industries from injury.


Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, allows retaliatory authority against "unjustifiable" or "unreasonable" foreign trade practices.


Adhering to U.S. tax law principles.


If a tariff is constitutional under the array of statutory laws passed by Congress, then it is lawful, intra vires, (within the government’s power).


If a tax is paid under a "wrong" statute not requiring a tax paid, but the amount of tax paid is legally owed under a different statute, no refund is owed. See: Lewis v. Reynolds (1932), and Donnelley Corporation v United States (2011) in which the court notes:


“No one is entitled a refund who has not actually overpaid his taxes. This axiomatic observation, made first by the Supreme Court in Lewis and recognized by this circuit in Estate of Michael, defeats this taxpayer's claim. Here, Donnelley has not overpaid its taxes, and we will not allow it to reap where it has not sown. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.”

Conclusion

If Trump's tariffs are constitutional under any Acts passed by Congress, then they are lawful, intra vires, (within the government’s power), and a petitioner to sustain a claim of not owing an amount paid to government, would have to prove they do not owe the amount in question paid to government.

Trump would more than likely win an appeal to Judge Richard Eaton's ruling, if he challenges that his tariff is lawful intra vires.
.

 

[beagle9]

What "theft" is that?

When other countries lay a tariff on US goods we don't pay that, just like they didn't pay tRump tariffs.

We didn't pay the tariffs implemented by other countries on our goods ?? They aren't paying the tariffs we placed on them either ?

That's crazy....

 

[Crepitus]

We didn't pay the tariffs implemented by other countries on our goods ?? They aren't paying the tariffs we placed on them either ?

That's crazy....

No, their business and citizens paid them.

When we level tariffs on goods we (our businesses and citizens) pay them.

It's not crazy, Son. It's how tariffs work. How they have always worked, BTW.

 

[beagle9]

No, their business and citizens paid them.

When we level tariffs on goods we (our businesses and citizens) pay them.

It's not crazy, Son. It's how tariffs work. How they have always worked, BTW.

I'll let someone else deal with you on this, because you are a leftist, and I don't trust leftist.

 

[struth]

No, their business and citizens paid them.

When we level tariffs on goods we (our businesses and citizens) pay them.

It's not crazy, Son. It's how tariffs work. How they have always worked, BTW.

No shit when you put a tax on businesses we pay them. The difference is when you put them on goods, we don’t have to buy those goods and pay those taxes

 

[Crepitus]

I'll let someone else deal with you on this, because you are a leftist, and I don't trust leftist.

Seriously?

Look it up.

 

[Crepitus]

No shit when you put a tax on businesses we pay them. The difference is when you put them on goods, we don’t have to buy those goods and pay those taxes

Look out kids, he's backing up!!!

 

[beagle9]

No shit when you put a tax on businesses we pay them. The difference is when you put them on goods, we don’t have to buy those goods and pay those taxes

Makes sense to me..

 

[struth]

Look out kids, he's backing up!!!

Huh?

 

[beagle9]

Huh?

What I thought too.. Huh ?

 

[task0778]

No, their business and citizens paid them.

When we level tariffs on goods we (our businesses and citizens) pay them.

It's not crazy, Son. It's how tariffs work. How they have always worked, BTW.

Crepitus is talking about US exports to another country. If that country lays a tariff on our stuff coming into their economy, we do not pay that tariff, right? Whoever imported our stuff into their country presumably pays that tariff and probably passes the higher cost onto their consumers.

It's the same in reverse, when a foreign country (business) exports their stuff to us, the US importer here pays the tariff (if there is one) and passes that cost onto our consumers.

 

[johnwk]

If Trump's challenged tariffs are lawful under any statute passed by Congress, they are then lawful intra vires.

If Trump appeals Judge Eaton's ruling by arguing the tariffs in question are lawful intra vires, e.g., under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (national security), or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (unfair trade practices), he is likely to win the appeal.

The argument is, if a tax is paid by a taxpayer under a statute not requiring a tax paid, but the amount of tax paid is legally owed under a different statute, no refund is owed. See: Lewis v. Reynolds (1932), and Donnelley Corporation v United States (2011) in which the court notes:

“No one is entitled a refund who has not actually overpaid his taxes. This axiomatic observation, made first by the Supreme Court in Lewis and recognized by this circuit in Estate of Michael, defeats this taxpayer's claim. Here, Donnelley has not overpaid its taxes, and we will not allow it to reap where it has not sown. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.”