"Nor are we deciding whether IEEPA authorizes any tariffs at all. Rather, the only issue we resolve on appeal is whether the Trafficking Tariffs and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders are authorized by IEEPA. We conclude they are not."
- FTA
Perhaps someone with better English can help me understand this quote. Its not deciding whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs, clearly it does (see below), but whether the tariffs imposed by Trump are authorized by the IEEPA?
The act in question allows the President to "regulate commerce."
www.law.cornell.edu
The founding generation understood that tariffs could be imposed either as a means of raising revenue or as a means of regulating commerce. Professor Robert Natelson explains that "[d]uring the founding era, commercial regulation was understood to entail financial impositions," and so a "legislature might adopt an imposition purely for regulatory purposes"by, for example, levying tariffs high enough to inhibit foreign imports and thereby protect domestic producers" (emphases added). And the Tariff Act of 1789 was enacted both "for the support of government" (i.e., revenue raising) and for "the encouragement and protection of manufacturers" (i.e., regulating commerce). What's more, the Supreme Court has recognized the overlap between taxation and commerce regulation. For example, in Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Illinois v. United States (1933), the Supreme Court wrote that even though "the taxing power is a distinct power, and embraces the power to lay duties, it does not follow that duties may not be imposed in the exercise of the power to regulate commerce" (emphasis added).
www.yalejreg.com
This goes to the Supreme Court, and Trump given the conservative nature of SCOTUS will win.
Not saying Trump isn't causing complete chaos in the market, because clearly that is happening. But the question is what he's doing legal? I would reckon SCOTUS will agree it is.
This is very interesting, though, as it has similar issues to the AEA problems Trump has ran into..
This is getting interesting. Since we've collected all these taxes on US businesses and US citizens, billions in fact. There may be some very happy people that are due some $$$ back from the C-in-C (Criminal in Chief) assuming the Sharia Supreme Traitors don't throw away the laws, stare decisis, and precedent of the past 249 years.
#2 | Posted by YAV
SCOTUS will probably rule in Trumps favor, "reciprocal tariffs" are regulating commerce.
I dont understand why the lawsuits isn't "does Trump have a legitimate reason to invoke these ACTs". Because Congress has worded these things so almost anything goes.
