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

quote:

---

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

---

Congress can repeal the IEEPA anytime it chooses. It can repeal the Trade Act of 1974 which likewise cedes the ability to regulate and tariff to the Executive Branch. But those powers once ceded, can certainly be used until they are reclaimed.

quote:

---

for Obama care, he said it could survive as a tax, but for Trump, he wants to argue since it’s a tax on Americans, Trump can’t impose? Seems like that’s some assumed word substitution there, but what do I know?

---

very little apparently.

quote:

---

Obamacare was a law passed by Congress. I didn’t care for Roberts characterizing the mandate as a tax, but it was most definitely a Congressional act. With tariffs, Trump is attempting to levy a tax on his own. So, not the same at all.

---

Trump is leading

Trying to drag people along before our country drowns under our debt

quote:

---

Roberts is obviously comprised.

---

”Comprised” of what?

quote:

---

You must not know that 'obamacare' was presented to congress as ANYTHING BUT A TAX !!!

IT WAS NOT A TAX - or else it wouldn't have been approved.

At the SCOTUS - it was not constitutional - UNTIL Roberts himself declared that "well, shucks - congress was just mistaken - unbeknownst to them they DID pass a tax - so we CAN approve it as a TAX." So we have 'obamacare'

---

Exactly correct analysis

quote:

---

very little apparently.

---

Au contraire. In the spirit of his Obamacare ruling, Roberts could simply claim tariffs are a fine, rather than a tax, just as he claimed the Obamacare fines could be labeled "taxes," therefore rendering Obamacare Constitutional. It's two sides of the same coin.

Regardless, Congress formally ceded rights for tariffs and trade regulation to the EB >50yrs ago. It is an action Congress could claw back at anytime. Roberts can stick his tax BS where the sun doesn't shine.

quote:

---

Look how many times Presidents used the Trade Act of 1974 to impose tariffs.

---

The Trade Act of 1974 authorizes tariffs.

The law Trump used for these does not specifically authorize tariffs. That's the point. They're trying to say it implies the authority to issue tariffs without the law specifically stating that's possible.

quote:

---

Yet we have like a century of history where President levied tariffs without Congressional approval……

---

You're using the wrong language

It's not about "approval" it's about "authority"

Presidents levied tariffs via Congressional authority. If Congress has already passed a statute, then there is the authority. The President doesn't need approval.

Trump is relying on a statute that doesn't authorize tariffs specifically. That was the whole basis of the oral arguments yesterday, where the admin is trying to interpret tariffs into a statute that does not reference them.

From Gemini:

quote:

---

No, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not explicitly mention tariffs, but it does grant the President the authority to "regulate" imports and exports during a national emergency. This ambiguity is the subject of legal debate, with arguments that "regulate importation" can be interpreted to include tariffs, while others maintain this power was not intended and has never been used in the act's history.
IEEPA's language: The act gives the President the power to "regulate" and "prohibit" imports and exports when a national emergency is declared. The specific word "tariff" is not used in the statute.

Legal interpretation: The core of the debate is whether the power to "regulate importation" includes the power to impose tariffs. Proponents argue that historically, tariffs have been a tool for regulating commerce, so they are implicitly included.

Opposition's argument: Opponents argue that the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, and that IEEPA was not intended to grant the President this power. They point out that Congress has created other laws that do explicitly authorize tariffs under specific conditions.

Historical context: No other president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs in the nearly 50 years since the law was passed, further fueling the argument that it was not the intended purpose of the act.

---

Trump's admin could have used one of the various other laws that authorizes tariffs explicitly, but they did not.

quote:

---

. Tgirl says, "maybe he should try doing something that's passed by Congress", or something to that effect. Another user says, "the tariff act of 1974 was passed by Congress."

---

Trump didn't use the Tariff Act of 1974 for these tariffs. Why do y'all keep citing them as if he did?

quote:

---

President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security

---

The choice of the administration

quote:

---

President Donald J. Trump Declares National Emergency to Increase our Competitive Edge, Protect our Sovereignty, and Strengthen our National and Economic Security

---

quote:

---

President Trump is invoking his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to address the national emergency posed by the large and persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of reciprocity in our trade relationships and other harmful policies like currency manipulation and exorbitant value-added taxes (VAT) perpetuated by other countries.

---

quote:

---

Using his IEEPA authority, President Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries

---

What is not included: references or invocation of the Trade Act of 1974.

quote:

---

Why didn't President Trump use these two provisions instead of IEEPA?

---

It involves less oversight, from what I read.