re: Robert’s insist that tariffs are a tax on the American people, and a tax needs to come

quote:

---

You're choosing selections and misattributing summaries of specific lines of question

---

I am quoting the BROAD CONSENSUS of your field's colleagues.

Admittedly, it is a surprising take based on my assumptions.
I would expect the justices will eventually rule base on the "emergency" categorization.

But if not, and if SCOTUS wants to maintain any credibility whatsoever, the government wins this case.

quote:

---

I am quoting the BROAD CONSENSUS of your field's colleagues.

---

And I literally gave you the appellate case discussing the issue before the court.

I even bolded and underlined it for you

quote:

---

But if not, and if SCOTUS wants to maintain any credibility whatsoever, the government wins this case.

---

You need to read up on the major questions doctrine and read case law, especially the Biden student loan case and you will realize dismissive framing is a little bit absurd

quote:

---

had Congress not designated the right of the EB to "regulate" trade with tariffs 3yrs earlier, and then used virtually IDENTICAL "regulate" language three years later in the legislation you are addressing.

---

Which other statute(s) are you referencing ?I'll check the language

The specific statute matters b/c the text of the statute matters. Which one, so I can look up the text

quote:

---

d you ever quote text from the IEEPA using the word "tariff"?

---

Regulation 100% covers it, a
s every serious legal analyst agrees.

Again, wtf are you doing? Seriously?

So what part of the IRS processes all these tariffs ?

“A tax on the American people is incorrect. We are not being taxed. It’s a price increase on foreign goods.”

A tariff is a tax on imports and clearly within congressional authority. The issue at hand has nothing to do with whether the tariffs are good or bad or whether they are paid by the importer or ultimately consumers—that’s a question for economists. This is about whether the executive has the power to levy them in the manner the administration did.

Maybe maybe not is a poor man's argument.

quote:

---

Trump is relying on IEEPA and I see no way Trump’s tariffs will pass muster under this law. No emergency and arguably no authority to levy a tariff (as opposed to other measures which are referenced in the law).

---

quote:

---

But Barrett was also skeptical at times of the challengers’ arguments. Along with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, she pressed Benjamin Gutman, the solicitor general of Oregon, who represented the group of 12 states, about whether IEEPA on the one hand could give the president very broad powers – for example, allowing him to shut down all trade with another country – but on the other would not allow him to take the much smaller step, in her view, of imposing tariffs. Such a paradox, Kavanaugh suggested, created an “odd donut hole” in IEEPA.
...

Justice Samuel Alito also seemed sympathetic to the administration’s arguments, telling Katyal that statutes that confer emergency powers are often phrased quite broadly.
...

And much like Barrett and Kavanaugh, Alito pressed Katyal about how IEEPA would operate in an emergency, describing a situation in which there is “an imminent threat of war with a very powerful enemy whose economy was heavily dependent on U.S. trade. Could a President under this provision impose a tariff as a way of trying to stave off that war, or would you say no, the President lacks that power under this” law? Alito appeared to believe that the president would have that power.

LINK

---