- 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
re: Fed Appeals Court rules most Trump tariffs illegal, next step Supreme Court
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:19 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Well then Trump can't enact tariffs
He can under the trade act of 74
I know that drives you crazy
2
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:19 am to Fun Bunch
If i am not mistaken, there must first be a declared national emergencies before the ieepa can be cited as reason. To my knowledge, no emergency has been.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:20 am to SDVTiger
quote:
He can under the trade act of 74
Why didn't he?
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:21 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
And no I don’t love being taxed, do you?
Nothing i buy daily has increased so I havent felt the one time price hike from tariffs
They are not a tax
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:21 am to ValZacs
If I recall now that you mention it he claimed our trade deficit was a national emergency.
Honestly pretty brilliant thought process from Miller, but certainly flimsy. He’s taking a page out of the Dem playbook. By the time the SCrt rules against him his tariffs will have achieved their goal.
Honestly pretty brilliant thought process from Miller, but certainly flimsy. He’s taking a page out of the Dem playbook. By the time the SCrt rules against him his tariffs will have achieved their goal.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:22 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
If I recall now that you mention it he claimed our trade deficit was a national emergency.
which proves he doesnt understand trade on a global scale.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:23 am to SDVTiger
I’m sorry but tariffs are a tax.
However, they are one with a specific and temporary purpose so it’s a tax that can be stomached on a short term basis.
I think he largely knows what he’s doing here but I’d like to see them slowly start to get more specific and targeted. I think that’s fair.
However, they are one with a specific and temporary purpose so it’s a tax that can be stomached on a short term basis.
I think he largely knows what he’s doing here but I’d like to see them slowly start to get more specific and targeted. I think that’s fair.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:23 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
The President doesn’t have the authority to levee tariffs.
quote:
ajor Statutes Delegating Tariff Authority
Law Purpose Presidential Powers
Trade Expansion Act of 1962 – Section 232 National security Allows the President to impose tariffs if imports threaten national security, following an investigation by the Department of Commerce.
Trade Act of 1974 – Section 201 Safeguard measures Enables temporary tariffs or quotas if increased imports seriously injure domestic industries, based on findings by the U.S. International Trade Commission.
Trade Act of 1974 – Section 301 Unfair trade practices Authorizes the President to retaliate against foreign trade practices that violate trade agreements or are unjustifiable.
Trade Act of 1974 – Section 122 Balance of payments Permits the President to impose tariffs during balance-of-payments crises or national emergencies.
Tariff Act of 1930 – Section 338 Reciprocal treatment Allows the President to impose retaliatory tariffs if other countries discriminate against U.S. exports.
Congress begs to differ....sheesh..
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:24 am to dafif
quote:
Congress
You just proved his point
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:25 am to SDVTiger
quote:
He can under the trade act of 74
Doesn’t look like he invoked it though from me searching right now
I haven’t read that Act, but once his reasoning under IPPEA is struck down he could then invoke this act to do them again (if what you say is true)
Which would he pretty funny. Then it would have to go through the courts again.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:26 am to dafif
quote:
Congress begs to differ....sheesh..
I’m really stunned that you people did not realize I was referring to constitutional authority but that’s a mea culpa on me for not being specific
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:26 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
haven’t read that Act, but once his reasoning under IPPEA is struck down he could then invoke this act to do them again (if what you say is true)
Looks like this is the plan
Dudes a stable.genius despite what you ppl say
quote:
Posted by Fun Bunch on 3/16/24 at 5:15 pm to
frick you.
As long as MAGA exists we are at war.
When MAGA goes away, when trump and everyone related to him dues horrible, screeching deaths, and there heirs die too, we can have peace.
Until then, frick off and frick you.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:27 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Looks like this is the plan
Dudes a stable.genius despite what you ppl say
Why not just use the correct law first?
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why not just use the correct law first?
Makes you wonder….
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why not just use the correct law first?
Probably to trigger ppl like yourself
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:29 am to SDVTiger
I think im being extremely fair to him here.
You could try to have a normal conversation instead of being antagonistic.
You could try to have a normal conversation instead of being antagonistic.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:29 am to Fun Bunch
He's just upset that he's been shown to agree with the appeals court
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
ou just proved his point
what point ? I dont think anyone is seriously arguing that congress under the constitution has authority to levy tariffs.
I also dont think people are arguing that the president has not been given very broad statutory authority to levy tariffs by congress under many circumstances that apply here.
As I said before...and you know this as a matter of appellate purposes...if there is a valid reason to uphold an action by the appellant, (Trump) even if not argued in the lower court, the appellate court will uphold the action under the lawful means.
I noticed you did not address the obamacare example where Roberts found it to be a tax and thus constitutional despite not being argued in the lower courts.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:32 am to dafif
quote:
Roberts found it to be a tax and thus constitutional despite not being argued in the lower courts.
Maybe when this hits the ussc they will give the same out but i doubt it
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:32 am to dafif
quote:
I dont think anyone is seriously arguing that congress under the constitution has authority to levy tariffs.
What
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News