Foes of Trump’s tariffs get their day in court and a shot at unraveling his trade deals

Truth Detector

Well-known member
Contributor
Congress is not equipped to negotiate with foreign nations over trade. It is a deliberative body that moves at the speed of snails. This is why it has, in the past, delegated this authority to the executive.

The plaintive here actually have no case in that it is the Congress who chooses not to act who actually has cause.

Activist judges have turned logic and the law on its head by actually pretending states can interfere with the Executive when it comes to foreign policy. The same goes for private businesses. They have no standing under our laws.

This is absurd nonsense when looked at legally and logically.

Foes of Trump’s tariffs get their day in court and a shot at unraveling his trade deals

President Trump’s unilateral power to impose tariffs on other nations will be hotly debated before a federal appeals court Thursday, a case that could upend the White House trade agenda and void the huge trade deals already struck.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear from administration attorneys contesting a May ruling that struck down Mr. Trump’s ability to set sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Trump team is squaring off with attorneys for Democratic-run states and the Liberty Justice Center, who say Mr. Trump is overstepping his powers and that the tariffs will harm constituents and small businesses.

“There are multiple reasons why we think the president’s tariffs are illegal or unconstitutional, and the court only really needs to agree with us on one of those in order for us to win,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center.

The plaintiffs say the president is tapping into authority that rests solely with Congress.

They say the 1977 law he is using, known as IEEPA, didn’t give presidents sweeping abilities to impose tariffs and, even if it had, Mr. Trump would be stretching the amount of trade power that Congress delegated to the executive branch.

Attorneys also said the levies would harm U.S. companies that rely on imports so the appeals court should uphold the lower ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade.


 
The White House and its attorneys argue that Mr. Trump is acting well within his presidential powers when he assigns tariffs.

“Congress routinely delegates tariff authority to the president to augment his inherent powers over foreign affairs and national security, and the Supreme Court has recognized that broad delegations in that sphere are the norm, not the exception,” the administration’s attorneys wrote in a brief.

The trade court ruled in favor of the justice center and Democratic-led states in the spring. Yet the administration appealed and received a stay, meaning Mr. Trump could proceed with his tariff moves pending the appeal.
 
Congress is not equipped to negotiate with foreign nations over trade. It is a deliberative body that moves at the speed of snails. This is why it has, in the past, delegated this authority to the executive.

The plaintive here actually have no case in that it is the Congress who chooses not to act who actually has cause.

Activist judges have turned logic and the law on its head by actually pretending states can interfere with the Executive when it comes to foreign policy. The same goes for private businesses. They have no standing under our laws.

This is absurd nonsense when looked at legally and logically.

Foes of Trump’s tariffs get their day in court and a shot at unraveling his trade deals

President Trump’s unilateral power to impose tariffs on other nations will be hotly debated before a federal appeals court Thursday, a case that could upend the White House trade agenda and void the huge trade deals already struck.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear from administration attorneys contesting a May ruling that struck down Mr. Trump’s ability to set sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Trump team is squaring off with attorneys for Democratic-run states and the Liberty Justice Center, who say Mr. Trump is overstepping his powers and that the tariffs will harm constituents and small businesses.

“There are multiple reasons why we think the president’s tariffs are illegal or unconstitutional, and the court only really needs to agree with us on one of those in order for us to win,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center.

The plaintiffs say the president is tapping into authority that rests solely with Congress.

They say the 1977 law he is using, known as IEEPA, didn’t give presidents sweeping abilities to impose tariffs and, even if it had, Mr. Trump would be stretching the amount of trade power that Congress delegated to the executive branch.

Attorneys also said the levies would harm U.S. companies that rely on imports so the appeals court should uphold the lower ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade.


“Trump’s Trade Deals Come With Few Details”​


“Trump's "devil in the details" trade deals sow confusion”​


“Deals” without details, even the participants don’t understand them, and there could be a legal consideration, last I knew, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress authority over tariffs, the President can negotiate trade, but Congress has the say on tariffs, not that this MAGA Congress cares how much Trump shits on them
 

“Trump’s Trade Deals Come With Few Details”​


“Trump's "devil in the details" trade deals sow confusion”​


“Deals” without details, even the participants don’t understand them, and there could be a legal consideration, last I knew, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress authority over tariffs, the President can negotiate trade, but Congress has the say on tariffs, not that this MAGA Congress cares how much Trump shits on them
There are details. How do you think deals are made halfwit. Spewing nonsensical garbage instead of doing a deep dive makes you look stupid and ignorant.

For the lazy and the ignorant:
 

“Trump’s Trade Deals Come With Few Details”​


“Trump's "devil in the details" trade deals sow confusion”​


“Deals” without details, even the participants don’t understand them, and there could be a legal consideration, last I knew, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress authority over tariffs, the President can negotiate trade, but Congress has the say on tariffs, not that this MAGA Congress cares how much Trump shits on them
More bad news; now , SOUTH KOREA is lying about a trade deal with Trump as well....those bastards!


But we know they're not fooling you and the other Demidiots, who see right through their lies, just like you did with the EU, and their evil plan to trick us into thinking they made a trade with us too!


Oh no!!! You wily Moron -o-crats are just too tricky !!




lol_ricky_gervais.gif
 
More bad news; now , SOUTH KOREA is lying about a trade deal with Trump as well....those bastards!


But we know they're not fooling you and the other Demidiots, who see right through their lies, just like you did with the EU, and their evil plan to trick us into thinking they made a trade with us too!


Oh no!!! You wily Moron -o-crats are just too tricky !!




lol_ricky_gervais.gif
Guess you didn’t read the sources confirming even the participants are not sure what is in them, not surprising, the Red Hat Club is known for its obstinateness
 
Guess you didn’t read the sources confirming even the participants are not sure what is in them, not surprising, the Red Hat Club is known for its obstinateness
Lie, lame and brainless. You would think that after being wrong all the time, even a moron like you would tire of it. But you're here to prove without any doubt you're an epic moron stuck on stupid and filled with dumb lies.

I am enjoying watching you cretins wallow in stupid.
 
They say the 1977 law he is using, known as IEEPA, didn’t give presidents sweeping abilities to impose tariffs and, even if it had, Mr. Trump would be stretching the amount of trade power that Congress delegated to the executive branch.
Worth noting that the 1977 law made absolutely no reference to any tariffs. It allows the president to block trading with enemies, but not place tariffs on them.

The 1974 law says that the president can only impose tariffs after an extensive investigation, and comment period. trump has done neither.
 

“Trump’s Trade Deals Come With Few Details”​


“Trump's "devil in the details" trade deals sow confusion”​


“Deals” without details, even the participants don’t understand them, and there could be a legal consideration, last I knew, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution grants Congress authority over tariffs, the President can negotiate trade, but Congress has the say on tariffs, not that this MAGA Congress cares how much Trump shits on them
Yeah, these tariffs are just taxes we're going to have to pay for our imported goods. But that's ok - manufacturing is coming back to America, amirite?
 
Lie, lame and brainless. You would think that after being wrong all the time, even a moron like you would tire of it. But you're here to prove without any doubt you're an epic moron stuck on stupid and filled with dumb lies.

I am enjoying watching you cretins wallow in stupid.
Typical ^

NEXT
 
Worth noting that the 1977 law made absolutely no reference to any tariffs. It allows the president to block trading with enemies, but not place tariffs on them.

The 1974 law says that the president can only impose tariffs after an extensive investigation, and comment period. trump has done neither.
Malarky. Here, get educated on this issue before you engage in more bullshit:

However, over time, particularly after the Great Depression, there was a shift towards delegating some authority to the executive branch. This began with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, allowing the President to negotiate trade agreements without separate congressional approval each time.

Later acts, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, further evolved this delegated authority
. These allowed the President to act on national security concerns through tariffs or respond to unfair foreign trade practices. However, this delegation is not unchecked. For instance, Section 232 of the 1962 Act enables the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, but this is bounded by specific findings and processes.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that any delegation of power must include an “intelligible principle” to direct and limit the President’s use of this authority. While the President can negotiate and respond to immediate threats, the imposition of generalized tariffs still requires congressional approval, reinforcing the separation of powers fundamental to our constitutional republic.

So let me interpret this last part in the context of these activist courts who apparently are not educated on the Constitution or the law:

Businesses cannot litigate against Trumps actions regarding Tariffs. Neither can states. This is purely an issue between Congress and the Executive Branch. If the Congress chooses to not act or complain about Trumps actions where it comes to Tariffs, they are delegating that authority. It's very simple and very obvious.
 
This began with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, allowing the President to negotiate trade agreements without separate congressional approval each time.
trump is setting up tariffs outside of trade agreements. That is Congress' job.

Later acts, such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974, further evolved this delegated authority
the 1974 Trade Act. This permits the president to respond to balance-of-payments crises, which might include the trade deficits that so irk Mr Trump, with tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days. It also allows unlimited levies on specific trading partners whose trade policy the administration judges to be “unjustifiable” or to “[burden] or restrict” American firms. But such unlimited levies can only be imposed after extensive investigation, a public notice and a comment period.

trump has not had the investigations, public notices, or comment periods.

Businesses cannot litigate against Trumps actions regarding Tariffs.
Taxpayers, in this case the businesses that pay the tariffs, are allowed to litigate the taxes imposed on them. That is a basic Constitution right.
 
trump is setting up tariffs outside of trade agreements. That is Congress' job.

What part of Congress desegregating that authority did you miss?

trump has not had the investigations, public notices, or comment periods.

There is no investigation, public notices or comment period required. Where do you come up with this dumb shit?

Taxpayers, in this case the businesses that pay the tariffs, are allowed to litigate the taxes imposed on them. That is a basic Constitution right.

Lie, lame and stupid. Show me the exact passage in the Constitution that mandates litigation.

Once again for the uneducated, this is strictly an issue between the Congress that has the Constitutional right and the Executive. Private parties and States are not a party to this constitutional question, WHICH, has been settled by Congress delegation to the Executive.
 
What part of Congress desegregating that authority did you miss?
I will assume you mean delegation, not desegregation. Congress has delegated that authority in a limited way, if the president meets the requirements. trump has specifically refused to meet the requirements, so it has not been delegated.

There is no investigation, public notices or comment period required.
Yes, there is:
[QUPTE]the 1974 Trade Act. This permits the president to respond to balance-of-payments crises, which might include the trade deficits that so irk Mr Trump, with tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days. It also allows unlimited levies on specific trading partners whose trade policy the administration judges to be “unjustifiable” or to “[burden] or restrict” American firms. But such unlimited levies can only be imposed after extensive investigation, a public notice and a comment period.[/QUOTE]

Show me the exact passage in the Constitution that mandates litigation.
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Once again for the uneducated, this is strictly an issue between the Congress that has the Constitutional right and the Executive.
Let's say a president, whether trump or not, says he wants to tax you of all your property. I mean, he is even going to seize the shirt off your back. Congress passed no law allowing him to tax everything you had, but he is doing it anyway.

According to you, there would be no redress. Only Congress would be allowed to try to get your property back.

In my world, you clearly have standing. It is your money and possessions being seized. If anything, you have more standing than Congress, who lost nothing but a vague right to control.

Private parties and States are not a party to this constitutional question
Let's say I import a case of Toblerone from Switzerland, and am handed a tariff of $100. According to you, I am not even a party to the question of the tariff, so cannot be called to court... That would mean there would be no way to punish me for not paying.

Of course I have the right to challenge the tariff bill in court, and if I do not pay it, the customs people are allowed to bring me to court.
 
I will assume you mean delegation, not desegregation.

Autospell check mistake. Yes delegate.

Congress has delegated that authority in a limited way, if the president meets the requirements. trump has specifically refused to meet the requirements, so it has not been delegated.

Congress has delegated it by not acting. Be smarter. :palm:

States have no party and neither do businesses. Got it?

Yes, there is:
the 1974 Trade Act. This permits the president to respond to balance-of-payments crises, which might include the trade deficits that so irk Mr Trump, with tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days. It also allows unlimited levies on specific trading partners whose trade policy the administration judges to be “unjustifiable” or to “[burden] or restrict” American firms. But such unlimited levies can only be imposed after extensive investigation, a public notice and a comment period.



Let's say a president, whether trump or not, says he wants to tax you of all your property. I mean, he is even going to seize the shirt off your back. Congress passed no law allowing him to tax everything you had, but he is doing it anyway.

According to you, there would be no redress. Only Congress would be allowed to try to get your property back.

In my world, you clearly have standing. It is your money and possessions being seized. If anything, you have more standing than Congress, who lost nothing but a vague right to control.


Let's say I import a case of Toblerone from Switzerland, and am handed a tariff of $100. According to you, I am not even a party to the question of the tariff, so cannot be called to court... That would mean there would be no way to punish me for not paying.

Of course I have the right to challenge the tariff bill in court, and if I do not pay it, the customs people are allowed to bring me to court
I will assume you mean delegation, not desegregation. Congress has delegated that authority in a limited way, if the president meets the requirements. trump has specifically refused to meet the requirements, so it has not been delegated.


Yes, there is:
[QUPTE]the 1974 Trade Act. This permits the president to respond to balance-of-payments crises, which might include the trade deficits that so irk Mr Trump, with tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days. It also allows unlimited levies on specific trading partners whose trade policy the administration judges to be “unjustifiable” or to “[burden] or restrict” American firms. But such unlimited levies can only be imposed after extensive investigation, a public notice and a comment period.





Let's say a president, whether trump or not, says he wants to tax you of all your property. I mean, he is even going to seize the shirt off your back. Congress passed no law allowing him to tax everything you had, but he is doing it anyway.

According to you, there would be no redress. Only Congress would be allowed to try to get your property back.

In my world, you clearly have standing. It is your money and possessions being seized. If anything, you have more standing than Congress, who lost nothing but a vague right to control.


Let's say I import a case of Toblerone from Switzerland, and am handed a tariff of $100. According to you, I am not even a party to the question of the tariff, so cannot be called to court... That would mean there would be no way to punish me for not paying.

Of course I have the right to challenge the tariff bill in court, and if I do not pay it, the customs people are allowed to bring me to court.
 
Back
Top