- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Robert’s insist that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and a tax needs to come
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
0
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You once again are misdirecting.
No. Congress has a much larger canvas from which it can act compared to the limited authority granted specifically by statute from which the president may act. It's two completely different standards and analytical structures. I've explained this literally three or four times to you.
Analysts are saying the Tariff case hinges on the "tax" issue. Retaliatory tariffs are penalties. Whereas Obamacare penalties were assessed and processed via the IRS, tariff fees have nothing to do with the IRS.
The similarity is in Roberts behavior and logic relative to fines vs taxes.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's what authority flows after that emergency is declared that we are discussing.
I just gave it to you, but here it is once again.
quote:
a United States federal law authorizing the president to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States.
So if tariffs are USED TO REGULATE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE then this gives the President the authority to use it at his discretion if he determines, say a trade imbalance, a national emergency.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:15 pm to Lg
quote:
a national emergency.
This is the retarded part.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
Biden was and is a vegetable. Also he lied about his intentions.
Trump delivers on promises. The voters want a better economy. The voters are in control ….
Trump delivers on promises. The voters want a better economy. The voters are in control ….
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:17 pm to Padme
you we embarrassingly dumb and give the GOP a bad name.
how do you not know that obama care went through congress, yet are somehow in the know enough to start a post on a political forum. im baffled
how do you not know that obama care went through congress, yet are somehow in the know enough to start a post on a political forum. im baffled
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:18 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This is the retarded part.
Nothing like cheap Chinese goods at the behest of the American worker, right Roger?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:20 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
This is the retarded part.
You probably think the wide open border wasn't a national emergency either, right? Talk about retarded.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:20 pm to Lg
quote:
Nothing like cheap Chinese goods at the behest of the American worker, right Roger?
American jobs making rubber dog shite are shite jobs
We offshored these for legit reasons. No one wants to work assembly lines for the wages they would bring.
If you were a smart guy, you would buy up trailers full of Chinese coolers, bring them to the USA, sell for profit and create your own wealth like No Colors did on the Outdoor Board.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:21 pm to Lg
quote:
I just gave it to you
In the most broad language possible.
quote:
So if tariffs are USED TO REGULATE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE then this gives the President the authority to use it at his discretion if he determines, say a trade imbalance, a national emergency.
That is the argument of his admin.
It did not seem to be persuasive yesterday.
Justifying that argument would lead to one of the largest expansions in unchecked executive power, basically reversing the decision in the Biden student loan case.
It's unlikely to be successful, though.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:21 pm to Lg
quote:
You probably think the wide open border wasn't a national emergency either, right?
Nope, it wasnt.
The refugee "crisis" was an emergency. MAGAts arent bright enough to understand the difference.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:22 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You once again are misdirecting.
No. That's the difference. Explained directly.
quote:
Analysts are saying the Tariff case hinges on the "tax" issue. R
Due to the limitations on the executive. As stated earlier, this limitation is not present when analyzing Congressional limitations, which are much smaller.
quote:
Whereas Obamacare penalties were assessed and processed via the IRS, tariff fees have nothing to do with the IRS.
Again, Congress has a larger canvas from which it can act.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:23 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Nope, it wasnt.
Good gosh!! How stupid can one person be.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:23 pm to Robcrzy
quote:
#,President,Year,Target/Description,Rate,Legal Basis,Notes/Revenue Impact
1,Lyndon B. Johnson,1963,"Imported light trucks (""Chicken Tax"")",25%,Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962),Retaliation against European poultry tariffs; still in effect today.
2,Richard Nixon,1971,All dutiable imports (import surcharge),10%,Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917,Temporary to address dollar devaluation; raised ~$2B in revenue before repeal in 1973.
3,Gerald Ford,1975,Crude oil and petroleum products,Up to 60% effective increase (fee to $1/barrel),Trade Act of 1974,Energy security measure; generated ~$1B annually.
4,Ronald Reagan,1983,Imported motorcycles over 700cc,Up to 45% (phased down over 5 years),Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974),Protected Harley-Davidson; collected ~$100M.
5,Ronald Reagan,1987,Japanese semiconductors and computers,100%,Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (precursor authority),"Enforced trade agreement; short-term, ~$200M impact."
6,George H.W. Bush,1991,Canadian softwood lumber,~6.5% (later adjusted to 11.8%),Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974),Dispute over subsidies; ongoing through NAFTA era.
7,George W. Bush,2002,"Steel imports from EU, Asia, others",Up to 30% (tiered),Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974),Safeguard action; withdrawn after WTO challenge; ~$500M collected.
8,Barack Obama,2009,Chinese passenger and light truck tires,Up to 35% (phased down over 3 years),"Section 421 (special China provision, Trade Act of 1974)","Saved ~1,200 U.S. jobs; ~$1.1B collected."
9,Barack Obama,2012,Chinese crystalline silicon photovoltaic products (solar panels),Up to 31% (phased down over 4 years),Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974),Anti-dumping response; ~$100M collected.
10,Donald Trump,2018,Solar panels (global) and washing machines,"30% (solar), 20–50% (washers, phased)",Section 201 (Trade Act of 1974),Safeguard; ~$1.8B collected in first year.
11,Donald Trump,2018,"Steel (global, exemptions for allies)",25%,Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962),National security; ~$20B+ cumulative revenue.
12,Donald Trump,2018,"Aluminum (global, exemptions)",10%,Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962),Paired with steel; ~$5B cumulative.
13,Donald Trump,2018,"$50B Chinese goods (tech, machinery; Lists 1–2)",25%,Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974),Unfair IP practices; part of trade war escalation.
14,Donald Trump,2018–2019,$300B+ additional Chinese goods (Lists 3–4A),7.5–25%,Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974),Expanded coverage; ~$60B+ collected 2018–2020.
15,Donald Trump,2019,Turkish steel and aluminum,"Doubled to 50% (steel), 20% (aluminum)",Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962),Retaliation for Syria incursion; temporary.
16,Joe Biden,2022,Chinese steel and aluminum (derivatives),25% (from 0–7.5%),Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962),Closed loopholes; ~$1B additional revenue.
17,Joe Biden,2024,"Chinese EVs, batteries, semiconductors, solar cells, steel/aluminum","100% (EVs), 25–50% (others)",Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974),"Strategic sectors; phased in, ~$18B projected annual."
18,Donald Trump,2025,Canada and Mexico imports (border security),25%,IEEPA (1977),National emergency declaration; ongoing as of Nov 2025.
19,Donald Trump,2025,Additional on China (all imports),+10% (on top of existing),IEEPA (1977),Drugs/immigration linkage; ~$10B+ projected.
20,Donald Trump,2025,"Universal baseline tariff (all imports, exemptions for USMCA)",10%,IEEPA (1977),Trade deficit emergency; broadest since 1971.
21,Donald Trump,2025,Reciprocal tariffs (bilateral deficit matching),Varies (10–60% by country),IEEPA (1977),Exempts electronics; suspended for some until July 2025.
22,Donald Trump,2025,Imported autos and parts (global),25%,Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962),National security probe; ~$100B projected revenue.
23,Donald Trump,2025,"Timber/lumber, furniture, kitchen cabinets (global)",10–50% (phased),Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962),Construction materials; effective Sep 2025.
24,Donald Trump,2025,"Steel, aluminum, copper (raised rates)","50% (steel/aluminum), new on copper",Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962),Expansion of 2018 actions.
25,Donald Trump,2025,Low-value imports from China (e-commerce),Updated duties (10–25%),Executive Order (reciprocal framework),Targets de minimis shipments; ~$5B projected.
I guess the lesson here is you believe that once one person breaks the constitution, it's ok for everyone else to do it as well.
Why can't this just be a list of shitty presidents who ignored the constitution instead of following their oath to defend it?
Because that's what I see. And LBJ was one of the fricking worst presidents in our history.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 12:59 pm to Lg
quote:
So if tariffs are USED TO REGULATE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE then this gives the President the authority to use it at his discretion if he determines, say a trade imbalance, a national emergency.
This is the exact language that the Administration relies on to find the power to tariff in the IEEPA:
quote:
investigate, block during the pendency of an investiga
tion, 7 regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or pro
hibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, with
drawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or deal
ing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect
to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign
country or a national thereof has any interest by any person,
or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States
You can find this in Title II Section 203 (a)(1)(B) here: LINK
More specifically the Administration argues that the power to tariff comes from the language "regulate . . . . importation or exportation of"
The argument against the government goes like this:
The "is it a tax" issue arises first on whether the power to "regulate" means a power to tax.
What does the Constitution say on that matter:
Article I Section 8 Clause 1:
quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
Clause 3:
quote:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
If imposing taxes is part of the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations then clause 3 is superfluous - it has no effect. Or, more generally, the power to regulate commerce is totally different from the power to collect taxes
But even if that is not convincing (and I personally do not think it is) then you have the argument I was using earlier.
The IEEPA using the language
quote:
regulate importation or exportation of
So if you substitute "tax" for "regulate" the statute would read that the President has the power to
quote:
tax . . . importation or exportation
The Constitution states:
quote:Article I Section 9 Clause 5
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
So, using the Administration's interpretation of the law would lead to the conclusion that the IEEPA is unconstitutional because it grants the President the power to tax exports.
So, if a tariff is a type of tax then the Administration's argument fails.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 1:13 pm to JimEverett
quote:
So, if a tariff is a type of tax then the Administration's argument fails.
So, all tariffs should be deemed unconstitutional if they are considered a tax.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 1:18 pm to Lg
No. not at all.
If "regulate" means the power to tariff, and a tariff is a tax then this particular statute would be unconstitutional - not a tariff itself.
Really, it is more of an argument that Congress granting the President the power to "regulate" is not giving the President the power to tariff.
The power to REGULATE does not include the power to TARIFF. That is the argument.
If "regulate" means the power to tariff, and a tariff is a tax then this particular statute would be unconstitutional - not a tariff itself.
Really, it is more of an argument that Congress granting the President the power to "regulate" is not giving the President the power to tariff.
The power to REGULATE does not include the power to TARIFF. That is the argument.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 1:23 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The power to REGULATE does not include the power to TARIFF.
But a tariff is used to regulate. And Congress passed the IEEPA giving the President the Authority to regulate. So, in reality, Congress would need to go back and amend the IEEPA and remove the tariff as an option to regulate commerce.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 1:31 pm to Lg
quote:
Congress would need to go back and amend the IEEPA and remove the tariff as an option to regulate commerce.
No - because "tariff" is not used in the IEEPA. Only "regulate"
the argument against the Administration is that "regulate" does not encompass the power to tax and that a tariff is a tax. For example - see what I wrote above regarding he two clauses in Article I. They have more arguments than that, but that is one of their arguments that the power to regulate does not encompass the power to tax.
Even if you do not buy that argument and assume that the power to regulate does allow for the power to tariff AND that a tariff is a tax then you come up to the problem that such a view makes the IEEPA unconstitutional because a plain reading of the text means that Congress gave the President the power to tax exports - which is clearly unconstitutional. A Court will not read it that way because they will not find a statute is unconstitutional unless it is absolutely necessary. Instead, it is easier to find that the power to regulate does not allow for the power to tariff. Therefore, the IEEPA does not grant the President the power to tariff at all.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 1:38 pm to JimEverett
quote:
the power to tariff at all.
But if a tariff is considered a tax, then why do they even exist? And who would actually have the authority to use the tariff, if not the President?
Page 21 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News