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

quote:

---

How? They're 2 different statutes with two very different bodies of texts.

The IEEPA does not specifically mention or authorize tariffs.

---

I does not need to. It grants the president broad authority to regulate commerce and transactions with foreign countries during a declared national emergency. Tariffs were already authorized as one means to regulate commerce and transactions with foreign countries. The IEEPA needn't respecify that. To the contrary, were tariffs to be excluded, that would have to be specified in the IEEPA.

The point of OP (which everyone but the lawyers could understand) is that the judiciary is fine contorting language to hurt Trump and never contorting it to help.

Start from the supposition that Trump is going to get fricked. Then back into it. Now you have a picture of our justice system.

quote:

---

I does not need to.

---

Well that's certainly the argument of the admin.

quote:

---

. It grants the president broad authority to regulate commerce and transactions with foreign countries during a declared national emergency.

---

Which may not include tariffs. That's the primary issue of the case.

The Trump admin is trying to insert tariffs via implication, not text-based support.

quote:

---

Tariffs were already authorized

---

Not by the IEEPA, so those other statutes are irrelevant to this discussion.

quote:

---

To the contrary, were tariffs to be excluded, that would have to be specified in the IEEPA.

---

The opposite is true otherwise you grant the Executive broad powers outside the text of the statute.

That was the Biden admin's argument for student loan forgiveness via the HEROES Act. The court properly struck down such an argument there. Do we really want them to reverse course?

quote:

---

As tariffs are authorized elsewhere, he does not need that specificity in this particular law.

Yes he does.

---

What is "broad authority" to regulate?
OF COURSE that would include tariffs!

If you want to argue the nature of the emergency used to trigger Executive action, go for it. But saying the POTUS could not use tariffs IAW the IEEPA is silly. It's analogous to saying use of force against an enemy has to specify exactly what variety of force(s) may be employed.

quote:

---

What is "broad authority" to regulate?

---

That authority is limited to the text of the statute involved and not another statute.

quote:

---

OF COURSE that would include tariffs!

---

Congress could have easily specified this and they chose not to, which is a major problem for this argument if you want to constrain executive authority to the actual text of a law.

quote:

---

. But saying the POTUS could not use tariffs IAW the IEEPA is silly

---

It didn't seem silly to the justices yesterday

We both remember how everything was bent in order to enact that shite pile of legislation.

You don’t even understand what that means because your brain has been recast to believe that might makes right.

quote:

---

Obamacare came from Congress.

---

They just can’t grasp this little caveat… Trump clearly had other options available that he ignored… his lawyers interpretation of statutes take into effect what Trump thinks… they lose on the language in every case they deal with

quote:

---

that the judiciary is fine contorting language to hurt Trump and never contorting it to help.

---

Victim shite… ain’t nobody contorting language… Trump and the people who surround him have proven to have a bad interpretation and reading of laws

quote:

---

That authority is limited to the text of the statute

---

and the text says POTUS may investigate, regulate, or prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange. Tariffs are nothing if not regulation of transactions in foreign exchange.

quote:

---

lepdagod

---

So you show up after the communist wins, did that put some wind in your sails?