President Donald Trump

I believe that Congress has the power to set tariffs, not the executive branch.

Write your Congressperson if you are unhappy with their tariff policy.

It would be absolutely great if we could have a public option or large-scale high speed rail projects.

That doesn’t mean I would support the president unilaterally declaring those things into law.

That’s leaving aside the issue of whether tariffs are good or bad, which I believe they are overwhelmingly bad in most situations.

Things are a bit more multifaceted than that. The govt still subsidizes industries to make sure the goods or available, or just straight out bailouts domestic production like it did with Ford in the recession - or agri or tesla.

That's kind of why a "mixed economy" like we've talked about in other threads tends to be produce the best economies because you got a lot more weapons to get people what they need instead of relying on a govt that controls everything and being at the mercy of limited competition, slower progress and possible shortages.

If you are upset that the president doesn't have unlimited power to impose tariffs, blame the Constitution, not that federal appellate court.

do you have an explanation as to why the vote only went 7-4? and 2 of the 4 voting against were appointed by democratic presidents!

I was expecting 9-2 or better to be honest

It's a nuanced issue.

Congresspersons in a capitalist economy are no different than its goods and services.

Their decisions are subject to the same "buy low sell high" masters as everything else. They sell their decisions to the highest bidder. Their first loyalty is to themselves, not their constituents.

Their donors generally make more money from low / no tariffs ..... so that's what we're going to get from them.

it's not given the constitution is very explicit in giving the power of setting tariffs exclusively to congress.

Congress can delegate it to the executive in various form but it didn't do that with IEEPA. And now with "major question" doctrine, unless a statute is extremely precise and explicit in delegating power, it is not applicable.

What can be nuanced is discussing when, if, how much and so on tariffs are appropriate.

But that's not the legal issue at the heart of the case, which is "can trump use IEEPA to set arbitrary tariff rates worldwide"? the answer is absolutely no lol why didn't even he attempt it. And that does not require to judge the effects of the tariffs and their appropriateness AT ALL.

Nut nut to give you an example of a similar, reversed situation during Biden term, Biden attempted to cancel student loans by executive action, claiming some provisions linked to covid relief gave him that power.

The courts said no, those provisions didn't give him that power (outside some fringe cases specificed in those provisions, for which Biden was able to cancel student loans and/or interest).

And courts never had to even touch the discussion about whether it was appropriate or not politically, "for the country", to cancel those student loans. That's not what courts do, should do, or are supposed to do.

Courts had to check if a power which stays with congress (appropriation, everything money related is "power of the purse" which is an exclusive power of congress) had been delegated to the executive for that particular case and the answer was no, so Biden couldn't do it.

This is identical for Trump using IEEPA to set tariffs

Even if one accepts that everything you just wrote above as being true, that doesn't change the FACT that it is Congress that has the power to set tariffs.

The court's job is to rightfully interpret the law, not to assess the integrity (or lack thereof) of Congresspeople and their lobbyists and donors.

It's certainly not the court's job to determine if tariffs are good, bad or indifferent for the economy.

How so?

I am less surprised that you that two of the dissenters were democratic appointees. Trump's tariffs obviously are a partisan issue. But the question of how explicit Congress has to be when delegating that authority is less so.

At the end of the day, I agree with you about the result, but these tariffs weren't the most obviously unconstitutional thing this administration has done. The administration's argument wasn't persuasive to me, but it passed the red-face test. It basically amounted to:

1. The power to "regulate" includes the power to impose tariffs
2. We know that because of Yoshida II, which was correct interpretation of a predecessor statute.
3. In variety of contexts, the president has been given broad latitude when determining what does or does not constitute a national emergency.
4. Make it seem like the president's tariff power under IEEPA is subject to a lot of limiting principles.

The easiest way to dismiss the administration's argument is to say that 1 is wrong, full stop. That's what the justices in the concurring opinion said, and I tend to agree with them. The administration (and the dissent) ignore some very obvious limiting principles in Yoshida II, but I wouldn't have gotten there.

There were bigger holes in the admin argument, which is why at the end they tried the "well whatever if you reverse these tariffs that would mean international chaos".

For ex the emergency they stated justified tariffs (3) ) was blatantly and measurably non existent for several of the countries Trump put tariffs to (ie, some countries didn't have a trade surplus).

Also, not accounting for trading in services is just falsifying data (when the claim is that trade unbalances are an emergency). So even if we buy the option, for the executive, to claim trade unbalances are an emergency, they didn't act according to their own definition of the emergency itself.

I agree that 1) is simply false *especially* now with the major question doctrine precedent of 2022. But even if they don't want to use WV v EPA because there was no agency involved, 3) had huge holes even if we allow the admin to arbitrarily decide what an emergency is. At least they have to act according to what they define as an emergency!

That's why i am really surprised any dem could dissent

Awesome story, tell it again

Deleted

What you're saying kind of reads that you dont like Trump so no biggi but if someone you liked took the role, you'd want them to have the power to break constitution for reasons that you like.

It's kind of there to prevent both Trump and your guy from single handedly ****ing up the world.

Meanwhile on Twitter, my entire feed is people speculating Trump being dead/it being hidden from the public

Yea sure. Every judge who has ever stated a dissenting opinion will tell you that their decision was based on the Constitution.

and sometimes that's actually literally true?

article 1 section 8 of the USA federal constitution

Section 8: Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

//Btw it wasn't a dissenting opinion: it was a federal court of appeal opinion, the majority claiming Trump cannot set tariffs with IEEPA

It's nuanced because it allows deep pocketed agents to understand that they can purchase the decisions of Congress. It's an Achilles Heel in the national security picture.

I don't like Trump at all. Don't like Democratic or Republican leadership.

But the President is the commander in chief and has the constitutional role of leading the country through war. The forms of war are not only with troops and military and weapons. Wars are also fought economically.

The favorability ratings of the US Congress among the American public has been below 30% for some time due to their corruption. And that's the institution which is endowed by the Constitution with the responsibility of protecting the public.

I didn't choose to be born in the US, but I was. So my selfish desire is to live in a country which has the capability to make the things that the country will need to make in the event of a global trade war. I don't want to live in a country which is dependent upon the good will of other countries which history has shown can evaporate at a moment's notice.

What’s it like being as much of a ****ing idiot as you are?

So basically you want a dictator that is able to do whatever he wants, and you want autarchy which has failed disastrously every time it has tried.

The combination of ecofascism and authoritarianism you espouse makes me more scared of the world you want than the world maga wants. Thankfully there are very few people that agree with you.

I wasn't referring to this case specifically. Is this the 7-4 case where two judges gave surprise dissents? I was merely saying that judges will tell you that their decision is where the underlying axioms logically leads them. Do you think those four judges would claim that they defied the Constitution?

it's true, he ded. **** himself to death (rip)

If it would have been Biden , I figured maga would say the deep states reptilian society kidnap him to extract his brain and replace him by a reptilian .