- 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 6:06 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Trump's admin could have used one of the various other laws that authorizes tariffs explicitly, but they did not.
Because those laws do not authorize Trump to arbitrarily assign tariffs to the entire world. Yes these laws give POTUS authority to tariff, but only after a specific process is followed. That process would have taken years to authorize Trump to assign targets the way he did:
1
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:08 am to Junky
quote:
Except the ACA originated in the Senate when taxes should originate in the House. Roberts allowed the administration back then to argue it was a tax, then the very next fricking day, allowed them to argue it wasn’t a tax. That is Robert’s consistency.
The bill cannot pass without a house version accepted by the senate. This seems like quite possibly the most pedantic distinction without a difference I’ve seen in some time.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:08 am to Ten Bears
quote:
Yes these laws give POTUS authority to tariff, but only after a specific process is followed. That process would have taken years to authorize Trump to assign targets the way he did:
That's the power he was given by Congress. Congress clearly doesn't want the President to have sweeping, unchecked powers to tariff without oversight I guess.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:08 am to SlowFlowPro
Yeah, he will use another rule if this fails, and then wait on that ruling, but doubt anything changes till the next President
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Because the Tariff Act of 1974 is clearly demonstrative of Congressional intent. It is also directly antithetical to Robert's contentions regarding tax, tariffs, and executive capacity to address them.
Trump didn't use the Tariff Act of 1974 for these tariffs. Why do y'all keep citing them as if he did?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:09 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Because the Tariff Act of 1974 is clearly demonstrative of Congressional intent.
Trump could have used that. He didn't.
quote:
It is also directly antithetical to Robert's contentions regarding tax, tariffs, and executive capacity to address them.
It's not. Trump could have relied on the Tariff Act and, assuming the admin followed its procedures correctly, we wouldn't be here, today.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:10 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:With all due respect, if that were the case, Roberts' line of questioning and focous on what is a "tax" would have been quite different.
This decision is whether or not Executive action was properly authorized by a statute.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
, if that were the case,
It is the case.
quote:
Roberts' line of questioning and focous on what is a "tax" would have been quite different.
Why?
Trump is relying on a law that does not specifically authorize tariffs.
He's using that law to create tariffs and they're arguing tariffs aren't taxes so that they fall within the law (that never mentions tariffs).
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
. Congress clearly doesn't want the President to have sweeping, unchecked powers to tariff without oversight I guess.
Exactly.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:He doesn't need to. The purpose of raising the Trade Act is to establish congressional intent. That intent obviously translates to the IEEPA. IEEPA was passed by Congress in the same timeframe (3yrs later), and essentially expanded executive capacity beyond its 1974 precursor.
Trump could have used that. He didn't.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 6:19 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:18 am to Demonbengal
Lawyers r not good at math or business. That is y they r lawyers
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:20 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
He doesn't need to.
There are other statutes authorizing tariffs, true. He didn't use those, either.
quote:
The purpose of raising Trade Act is to establish congressional intent.
That intent only applies to that act.
He did not use that act, so their intent for that act is irrelevant for discussing of using the IEEPA.
quote:
That intent obviously translates to the IEEPA.
How? They're 2 different statutes with two very different bodies of texts.
The IEEPA does not specifically mention or authorize tariffs.
The intent of another law that specifically authorizes tariffs is irrelevant to a discussion of the IEEPA.
In fact, that's a losing argument, as it shows that when Congress authorizes tariffs it will be explicit and they don't rely on vague language that requires looking into the intent.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You've conflated attack and retort. It is Roberts who addressed tariffs as a tax. The response is, they are a classic fine.
He's using that law to create tariffs and they're arguing tariffs aren't taxes
quote:As tariffs are authorized elsewhere, he does not need that specificity in this particular law. He just needs the law to specify that he can determine remedy. Remedy in this case are tariffs, authorized elsewhere. Fairly straightforward really.
Trump is relying on a law that does not specifically authorize tariffs.
The reason Roberts went to "taxes" is because tariffs are authorized. Taxes could be a way to undercut constitutionality of the 1974 and 77 congressional legislation. But as previously noted, especially given Roberts' willingness to twist verbiage, the difference between a "fine" and a "tax" is malleable.
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 6:31 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:31 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You've conflated attack and retort.
No.
quote:
As tariffs are authorized elsewhere, he does not need that specificity in this particular law.
Yes he does. I posted the link earlier where his admin relied on the IEEPA and not the Trade Act of 1974.
They don't get to bait and switch the use of Executive authority.
quote:
He just needs the law to specify that he can determine remedy. Remedy in this case are tariffs, authorized elsewhere.
Then he needed to use the laws authorizing tariffs.
quote:
Taxes could be a way to undercut constitutionality of the 1974 and 77 congressional legislation.
No
That's literally not what was being argued, nor was it before the court.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:33 am to Padme
obama care aint no taxing of the people
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:36 am to Diego Ricardo
quote:
The bill cannot pass without a house version accepted by the senate.
The Constitution states that any bill dealing with revenue must originate in the house.
quote:
Section 7: Legislative Process
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
The senate took a bill that originated in the house that had nothing to do with revenue, stripped it clean, added the ACA language to it then and sent it back to the house.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:38 am to Padme
quote:
So 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?
Obamacare came from Congress.
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:38 am to antibarner
quote:
There already is such a law. Read the Trade Act of 1974 Trump has the authority. Roberts knows it too.
Congress subjugated its role in tariffs with those Acts giving the President authority to act in trade disputes.
That is because they knew Congress back then they couldn’t agree at times to vote on naming a post office.
How would you depend on those do nothings that are currently in an impasse on passing a budget to stop a trade war?
This post was edited on 11/6/25 at 6:39 am
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:40 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Obamacare came from Congress.
No shite. Where was the tax in Obamacare?
Posted on 11/6/25 at 6:41 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Are you under the impression Obamacare was imposed by Obama without Congress?
Yeah, he butchered that. However, Roberts DID perform logical gymnastics to help usher in Obamacare. The penalty for non-compliance with the Individual Mandate had to be a non-tax to make it through one step of the process, then a tax to get past SCOTUS.
Page 6 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News