- 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: Trump is not happy about SCOTUS and tariffs
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:09 am to Taxing Authority
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:09 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
There's no Constitutional basis for the "Congress didn't do anything, so the president gets to do whatever he wants".
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is arguing that the President doesn't have tariff power, just that it requires valid Congressional authorization.
0
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:09 am to JimEverett
quote:
Elections?
So every four years for the executive? Or two years to theoretically cram the minority party into a large majority?
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:09 am to Trevaylin
quote:
may you have fair winds and a following sea in your lifes journey
Thanks. You as well.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:09 am to BugAC
quote:
It’s being distributed to the people. $2000 tariff rebate checks. Good luck trying to get that back.
The admin will have to print billions, yes. It will be a disaster
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:10 am to Trevaylin
quote:
yet the Supreme Court will ask the 465 to manage trade relations with 180 countries covering 5000 products.
U.S. Constitutional, Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have the power to...regulate Commerce with foreign nations."
Silly Supreme Court, actually trying to follow the Constitution....SMH.
You may be right, and the power may be better suited for POTUS, but you need a Constitutional Amendment for that.
Now, since Congress is slow to move, it can delegate its power to regulate trade to POTUS, but the Constitution requires Congress retain control of the power. So, the delegation statutes have to clearly express Congress' instructions to POTUS, so that the Executive branch knows how Congress intends the power to be wielded.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:11 am to SlowFlowPro
wikipedia sez straw man arguments are a useful method of defining issues, leading to successful collaborative input
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:12 am to VOR
quote:
His fixation on tariffs is pretty odd,
Trump has hangups on intermediate steps instead of outcomes.
Once he decides a wall or a tariff is necessary to achieve a goal, you cant talk him out of it.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:12 am to SlowFlowPro
Not to mention the impacts on inflation. Seriously though, the treasury is high to have a rough time putting an extra $500B+ in USTs into the market
This post was edited on 11/9/25 at 10:19 am
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:16 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
I wonder if we'll ever get the definitive word on why Roberts is compromised? I know what one rumor is.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:16 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
would trust you more than those dipshits on the bench who think they have superhuman powers.
True Dat. Many judges have God complexes. They think they ARE the law.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:17 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
quote:
Im game. Since you say it is a "tax" on Americans, how would you ensure all 340 million got a refund proportionate to what they paid?
I thought foreign countries paid all of the tariiffs?
According to DJT they do.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:18 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
So every four years for the executive? Or two years to theoretically cram the minority party into a large majority?
Yes, every 2 years elect candidates that do not cede power by giving the President "emergency powers"
It may have made sense when Congress was only in session part time, but not now.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:27 am to JimEverett
Did the IEPPA have a mechanism for Congress to either nullify a declared emergency by the executive or other way to wrestle back the power from the executive absent veto-proof majority to rescind the law altogether?
There has to be an easier and more direct mechanism for Congress to take back the power it’s ceded under defined circumstances if it feels the executive is not exercising it under the circumscribed circumstances.
There has to be an easier and more direct mechanism for Congress to take back the power it’s ceded under defined circumstances if it feels the executive is not exercising it under the circumscribed circumstances.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:29 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
There has to be an easier and more direct mechanism for Congress to take back the power it’s ceded
The Trump admin is trying to argue this sort of claw back is unconstitutional, effectively, in the Impoundment Control Act cases and the cases arguing independent agency executive selection is illegal cases
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:31 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Seemingly any time Congress delegates to the executive branch they need to include some sort of review. Like the War Powers Act, which allows president to take emergecy actions, but requires a congressional component in the longer term.
Did the IEPPA have a mechanism for Congress to either nullify a declared emergency by the executive or other way to wrestle back the power from the executive absent veto-proof majority to rescind the law altogether?
The problem is Congress are dumbasses and often don't do that.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They're going to have to start over and refund all the tariff monies collected under the illegal acts, if the old tariffs are invalidated.
Kinda like when you have to refund your clients after your shitty advise on Living Wills and divorces
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:39 am to 4x4tiger
Your hilariously incorrect ad hom is noted 
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:51 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
question for the boards lawyers - why didn’t the federal courts put a pause on tariff collections while this case made its way through the appeals process or at least force the gov to put all of those funds in an escrow account?
This post was edited on 11/9/25 at 10:53 am
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:54 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
why didn’t the federal courts put a pause on tariff collections while this case made its way through the appeals process or at least force the gov to put all of those funds in an escrow account?
There were initial injunctions but a later ruling by the USSC that gutted these injunctions made it too difficult to do what you posted.
Posted on 11/9/25 at 10:58 am to SlowFlowPro
That makes no sense. If the government clearly loses in court, the ruling should remain in effect unless and until it’s overturned on appeal—especially when ongoing enforcement is causing significant harm to the plaintiffs. Moreover, doesn’t this undercut the argument that repatriating tariff funds would be problematic? After all, by allowing collections to continue, the Supreme Court implicitly signaled it wasn’t concerned about that issue in the first place.
This post was edited on 11/9/25 at 11:00 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News