- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Constitution does not Give Trump Authority to Impose Tariffs
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:47 pm
Articles I & II of the Constitution give Congress sole authority to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs. Trump does not have this authority under the Constitution.
However, likes so many other things, the Do Nothing Congress has delegated these powers to the President in certain situations. There is a laundry list of statues that delegate these powers to the President but typically in a narrowly defined manor with time restrictions. Some of the broadest powers are granted to the President during times of war or when there are clear threats to national security. I've seen a couple of articles indicating that the White House is considering the national security hook but it will be interesting to see what authorities the WH references, if they proceed unilaterally. Also, Trump will be sued over this with the likely challenge coming against the constitutionality of the delegation or the application of the delegation.
My knee jerk reaction is that the tariffs Trump described seem bad but I don't know anything about either industry or how the international markets work. What I do know, it will be glorious watching so many people clamor for a return to respecting the Constitution
However, likes so many other things, the Do Nothing Congress has delegated these powers to the President in certain situations. There is a laundry list of statues that delegate these powers to the President but typically in a narrowly defined manor with time restrictions. Some of the broadest powers are granted to the President during times of war or when there are clear threats to national security. I've seen a couple of articles indicating that the White House is considering the national security hook but it will be interesting to see what authorities the WH references, if they proceed unilaterally. Also, Trump will be sued over this with the likely challenge coming against the constitutionality of the delegation or the application of the delegation.
My knee jerk reaction is that the tariffs Trump described seem bad but I don't know anything about either industry or how the international markets work. What I do know, it will be glorious watching so many people clamor for a return to respecting the Constitution
8
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:48 pm to rds dc
You are correct.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:49 pm to Rex
Like you give a shite about the constitution
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:51 pm to rds dc
Lol.
You people are melting bigly over these proposed tariffs
Muh ARs for teenagers.
Muh trade wars.
Turn your coats on if you are going to act like the snowflakes.
You people are melting bigly over these proposed tariffs
Muh ARs for teenagers.
Muh trade wars.
Turn your coats on if you are going to act like the snowflakes.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:53 pm to rds dc
China is using trade to build their military to go to war against us ... so technically this falls under national security.
At least that's the way I see it.
Not only that but we need our steel industry up and running at full capacity and fully modernized if we are going to fight a major war in the next ten to twenty years .... and we are.
At least that's the way I see it.
Not only that but we need our steel industry up and running at full capacity and fully modernized if we are going to fight a major war in the next ten to twenty years .... and we are.
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 5:58 pm
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:54 pm to rds dc
Meh..... Steel and Aluminum......
Canada and Mexico....
NAFTA renegotiation ploy.
Short term tariffs to bolster our position elsewhere. Enjoy the lib tears and vapors.
Canada and Mexico....
NAFTA renegotiation ploy.
Short term tariffs to bolster our position elsewhere. Enjoy the lib tears and vapors.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:55 pm to IllegalPete
quote:
Lol.
You people are melting bigly over these proposed tariffs
Muh ARs for teenagers.
Muh trade wars.
Turn your coats on if you are going to act like the snowflakes.
What are you talking about? Do you even know what melting is? Please highlight the "melty" parts of the post. Thanks in advance.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 5:58 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
Short term tariffs to bolster our position elsewhere. Enjoy the lib tears and vapors.
This. its awesome to watch this melt
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:00 pm to scrooster
quote:
China is using trade to build their military to go to war against us ... so technically this falls under national security.
At least that's the way I see it.
Not only thay but we need our steel industry up and running and modernized if we are going to fight a major war in the next ten to twenty years .... and we are.
Both "national security" and "times of war" seem to very broadly defined in these delegations. Just having troops deployed in "war zones" or what you described above may be enough to enact the authorities under certain delegations.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:22 pm to rds dc
quote:
Articles I & II of the Constitution give Congress sole authority to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariffs. Trump does not have this authority under the Constitution.
However, likes so many other things, the Do Nothing Congress has delegated these powers to the President in certain situations. There is a laundry list of statues that delegate these powers to the President but typically in a narrowly defined manor with time restrictions. Some of the broadest powers are granted to the President during times of war or when there are clear threats to national security. I've seen a couple of articles indicating that the White House is considering the national security hook but it will be interesting to see what authorities the WH references, if they proceed unilaterally. Also, Trump will be sued over this with the likely challenge coming against the constitutionality of the delegation or the application of the delegation.
You know if you just used google and/or wikipedia you would see that the SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue and said that Congress can delegate to the Executive branch and you would see that the Congress has already delegated that power to the Executive.
quote:LINK
J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928),[1] is a landmark[2][3] case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch.
quote:LINK
Trade Expansion Act of 1962 §232(b)–(c):
24 If the Secretary of Commerce
“finds that an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or
under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security,” then the
President is authorized to take “such other actions as the President deems
necessary to adjust the imports of such article so that such imports will not
threaten to impair the national security” (subject to certain procedural
requirements).
quote:WSJ
Thursday’s meeting between the president and the manufacturing executives comes two weeks after the Commerce Department released the results of a study launched last April looking at whether steel and aluminum imports pose a threat to American defense, by reducing U.S. capacity to make key materials for military equipment, and whether that threat could justify new import curbs under a little-used 1962 trade law
The study, conducted in consultation with other agencies, concluded that those imports undermine American military needs and laid out three options for Mr. Trump to consider for each industry: global tariffs, global quotas or a more targeted approach focused on a handful of exports seen as most responsible for hampering U.S. industry.
So Congress has the right to delegate the power to him and Congress has already delegated the power to him and the DOC's study did support the tariff's as an issue of national security.
quote:
My knee jerk reaction is that the tariffs Trump described seem bad but I don't know anything about either industry or how the international markets work.
Knee jerk reactions are only useful for one thing and that is making you look like a dumbass.
quote:
What I do know, it will be glorious watching so many people clamor for a return to respecting the Constitution
If you liberals respected the Constitution then you also have to respect the 10th Amendment and it would mean that you would have to disown 98.23% of Obama's policies. So you are basically cheering for yourself to get egg all over you face.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:30 pm to IllegalPete
quote:Well for all of the irrelevant stuff we all get caught up in with politics, this is actually something that could have a national and global implications, and try could be potentially very negative ones at that.
You people are melting bigly over these proposed tariffs
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:30 pm to rds dc
quote:
Both "national security" and "times of war" seem to very broadly defined in these delegations.
Which is why it requires an report from the DOC explaining the reasoning for the tariff. Here is the 262 page report that explains the reasons and gets rid of the ambiguity.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:47 pm to WeeWee
quote:
You know if you just used google and/or wikipedia you would see that the SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue and said that Congress can delegate to the Executive branch and you would see that the Congress has already delegated that power to the Executive.
Did you even read my post before racing off to Google?
2nd paragraph of the OP:
quote:
However, likes so many other things, the Do Nothing Congress has delegated these powers to the President in certain situations. There is a laundry list of statues that delegate these powers to the President but typically in a narrowly defined manor with time restrictions. Some of the broadest powers are granted to the President during times of war or when there are clear threats to national security.
Congress did that, not the Constitution.
quote:
Trade Expansion Act of 1962 §232(b)–(c):
24 If the Secretary of Commerce
“finds that an article is being imported into the United States in such quantities or
under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security,” then the
President is authorized to take “such other actions as the President deems
necessary to adjust the imports of such article so that such imports will not
threaten to impair the national security” (subject to certain procedural
requirements).
Also from the OP:
quote:
Also, Trump will be sued over this with the likely challenge coming against the constitutionality of the delegation or the application of the delegation.
If Trump cites the Trade Expansion Act, he will be sued. I'm not making an argument as to the validity of such an action but it is basically guaranteed in this era of judicial activism.
quote:
If you liberals respected the Constitution then you also have to respect the 10th Amendment and it would mean that you would have to disown 98.23% of Obama's policies. So you are basically cheering for yourself to get egg all over you face.
Once again, did you read the OP? I said that I didn't know enough about the international steel and aluminum markets to really have an opinion but as a libertarian my knee jerk reaction was to not be in favor of additional tariffs. However, I will read any supporting materials that the Trump admin puts out there and will take an informed position, even if that means not supporting a Trump position.
Also, please find one post where I ever supported any Obama policies? Outside of his total disinterest in space policy, he was a failure across the board.
This post was edited on 3/1/18 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 3/1/18 at 6:52 pm to WeeWee
quote:
quote:
Both "national security" and "times of war" seem to very broadly defined in these delegations.
Which is why it requires an report from the DOC explaining the reasoning for the tariff. Here is the 262 page report that explains the reasons and gets rid of the ambiguity.
Thanks for the link, I have not seen that report before.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 8:59 pm to rds dc
Cool. It is judged unconstitutional.
Trumps get points for trying. Demos get a mark for blocking the American worker. Congress continues a record of doing very little in the way of trade.
But it does send a signal to the world that maybe Congress might get on board one day. Maybe a chance for the world to make the trade with the old US of A a bit more fair for everyone.
I think Trump wins points on this.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 9:29 pm to rds dc
I support if for no other reason than to limit Chinese steel in this country.
It sucks. The shite will rust away with just the threat of rain.
It sucks. The shite will rust away with just the threat of rain.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 9:34 pm to rds dc
quote:
The Constitution does not Give Trump Authority to Impose Tariffs
But Congress sure as hell did. Maybe they should have thought about that before enacting NAFTA
quote:
Safeguards
NAFTA provides timely, effective relief to American workers and firms needing time to adjust to injurious imports from Mexico.
Two Important Safeguards
A bilateral safeguard permits "snap-back" to pre-NAFTA tariff rates for up to 3 years — or 4 years for extremely sensitive products — if increases in imports of Mexican goods cause or threaten to cause serious injury to American firms or workers. "Snap-back" means resetting a tariff at its original level. A global safeguard retains our right to impose quotas or tariffs on Mexico and/or Canada as part of a multilateral safeguard action.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 10:09 pm to rds dc
quote:
quote:
Both "national security" and "times of war" seem to very broadly defined in these delegations.
Which is why it requires an report from the DOC explaining the reasoning for the tariff. Here is the 262 page report that explains the reasons and gets rid of the ambiguity.
Thanks for the link, I have not seen that report before.
You're welcome for the link. If Trump cites the 1962 law and uses that report as basis for his national security claim than whomever attempts to sue him will lose bigly in court. They might win the initial case in the 9th circuit court, but eventually the SCOTUS will back the POTUS.
Posted on 3/1/18 at 10:13 pm to gthog61
quote:
Like you give a shite about the constitution
So you dont either? Now how can you judge?
Posted on 3/1/18 at 10:16 pm to WeeWee
Nice post. Solid links and I learned something 
I was curious of that background when Trump spoke of national security in his remarks today, but you gave a good background and context of why.
I also agree with the theoretical basis of Congress delegating to the executive.
I was curious of that background when Trump spoke of national security in his remarks today, but you gave a good background and context of why.
I also agree with the theoretical basis of Congress delegating to the executive.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News