At the Supreme Court, a debate over whether tariffs are taxes

[Truth Detector]

LOL. You are I am too stupid to understand temporary giving power in an emergency to delegating the power forever.

Indeed, you are, moron.

 

[Truth Detector]

it's fun watching the pretzels you fuckers twist yourselves in to in order to make yourself look like you're correct.

More fun watching brainless Kamala voters whine and rant every day while Trump resides in that empty space between your ears.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes, and an unusual and extraordinary threat was declared halfwit. You think Congress has to declare it? Moron.

I see. So the next President that is a Democrat can simply declare you a threat and lock you up and you will have no recourse?

I can't wait to not hear your whining and complaining.

 

[Truth Detector]

Thanks, proved my point, the SCOTUS argument on the ACA would apply to tariffs,

Making stupid shit up again. Tariffs aren't taxes brainless moron.

and by the way, if you want to go there, no Democrat voted for the “Big + Beautiful Bill,”

True. That's becuase Democrats hate America and would never vote for something that benefits every day Americans dumbass.

in fact three Republicans even voted against it,

OMG!!!! No shit! Pointless Moron.

Vance had to be called in to get it thru a dominated GOP Congress.

OMG!!!! No shit! Pointless Moron.

And to show you what a debacle of is even Trump wants to change its name before the midterms

Debacle? You might want to look up words that are beyond your comprehension before misusing them halfwit.

The second part of your idiocy proved my prediction, 100%, never doubted it wouldn’t

Thanks, that was easy

Doesn't think he's the idiot.

 

[Truth Detector]

So we agree that it is Congress' authority to use or delegate? Congress has specifically delegated some limited tariff powers to the president, but trump has gone well past that limited delegation. There is no such thing as a non delegation delegation, so trump is out of luck for most of the tariffs.

.....because you say so. But then, you're an uneducated brainless leftist who votes for idiots.

 

[Truth Detector]

He's back for more bitch slapping.

I see. So the next President that is a Democrat can simply declare you a threat and lock you up and you will have no recourse?

That is the Presidents prerogative. It certainly isn't your call or whiney leftists call.

Now if only you had candidates that had brains and a policy platform that normal people would vote for.

I can't wait to not hear your whining and complaining.

I get tired of seeing and watching you whine and complain like a brainless, uneducated halfwit on steroids with severe TDS.

 

[Jake Starkey]

Yes, and an unusual and extraordinary threat was declared halfwit. You think Congress has to declare it? Moron.

But it does not fit this. Tough. That's how SCOTUS will rule.

 

[archives]

Making stupid shit up again. Tariffs aren't taxes brainless moron.



True. That's becuase Democrats hate America and would never vote for something that benefits every day Americans dumbass.



OMG!!!! No shit! Pointless Moron.



OMG!!!! No shit! Pointless Moron.



Debacle? You might want to look up words that are beyond your comprehension before misusing them halfwit.



Doesn't think he's the idiot.

No content ^, just the same lame adolescent personal crapola, always predictable, just like the towel hitting the canvas

 

[Truth Detector]

But it does not fit this. Tough.

Because you say so.

That's how SCOTUS will rule.

Now you're predicting how the SCOTUS will rule? Laughable.

 

[Truth Detector]

No content ^, just the same lame adolescent personal crapola, always predictable, just like the towel hitting the canvas

Describing your posts again I see. I do wish you had a brain and a scintilla of self-awareness.

 

[archives]

Describing your posts again I see. I do wish you had a brain and a scintilla of self-awareness.

And defiantly a lack of originality, “I know you are, but what am I”

 

[Truth Detector]

And defiantly a lack of originality, “I know you are, but what am I”

That sums up most of your posts on this forum you whiny gullible halfwit.

Your typical argument is "BUT TRUMP" and "THE SOURCE dontchyaknow".

 

[Jake Starkey]

Truth Detector is a piggy halfwit.

 

[Truth Detector]

Truth Detector Jake Starley is a piggy halfwit.

FIFY mental case.

But never sell yourself short Jake, you're also a mentally unstable, worthless piece of human excrement.

 

[Jake Starkey]

FIFY mental case. Truth Detector Jake Starley is a piggy halfwit.

But never sell yourself short Truth Detector Jake, you're also a mentally unstable, worthless piece of human excrement.

 

[archives]

That sums up most of your posts on this forum you whiny gullible halfwit.

Your typical argument is "BUT TRUMP" and "THE SOURCE dontchyaknow".

Hey pal, your Messiah is the egomaniac, he wants it all about him, ergo it usually is all about Trump, unfortunately for him his narcissistic schtick ain’t selling anymore, but it is entertaining watching lemmings as yourself try to rationalize it

 

[Jake Starkey]

 

[Jake Starkey]

 

[SmarterthanYou]

More fun watching brainless Kamala voters whine and rant every day while Trump resides in that empty space between your ears.

yet again, you display your two dimensional ignorance...............congrats.

 

[tigerred59]

Arguments that attempt to suggest that Tariffs are a tax are uneducated, ignorant and laughably dumb.

At the Supreme Court, a debate over whether tariffs are taxes​

Spoiler alert: They're not

When the Supreme Court heard arguments last week on President Trump’s emergency tariffs, plaintiffs opposed to the tariffs insisted, “Tariffs are taxes.” That framing gets history and the law wrong.

Tariffs are NOT taxes. They are instruments of foreign commerce regulation and national defense, long recognized as distinct from Congress’ domestic taxing power. That distinction is not a technicality; it is constitutional with deep roots.

The constitutional test for distinguishing a tax from a regulatory duty is simple. A tax raises general revenue for domestic spending; a tariff regulates foreign commerce. Any revenue that results from a tariff is incidental to its regulatory purpose, much like fines or license fees that accompany environmental or banking rules. Tariffs are thus a classic expression of the power to regulate foreign trade, not the power to tax American citizens.

At the Constitutional Convention, the framers granted Congress the power to impose “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” The separation was deliberate: Duties and imposts were not taxes. They were instruments of trade and national policy, not domestic revenue in the modern sense.

In 18th-century language, imposts referred to what we now call tariffs. The first Congress enacted the nation’s first imposts in 1789, levying duties on imports including British textiles, Caribbean sugar and European glassware. They were imposed in part for “the encouragement and protection of manufactures,” as the statute itself declared.

When President Lincoln later championed “protective tariffs,” he referred to them as “a system of defense,” not a revenue scheme. That founding logic has carried forward into modern law.

In Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG (1976), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld President Ford’s import fees on foreign oil under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Opponents claimed those fees were taxes; the court disagreed. As the justices explained, “The imposition of a license fee on imports is a method of achieving the permitted end — adjustment of imports — no less than the use of quotas.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/nov/10/supreme-court-debate-whether-tariffs-taxes/