re: Trump tariffs blocked by US Court of International Trade

Sounds like you ought to send your thoughts to your Congressman and tell them to pass a tariff.

I also recommend reading this case because it is about tariffs under the IEEPA.

Lets go back to the beginning.....

Why does this court exist at all, we have courts for this process.

Its because congress set up this court to specifically control what the President can do regarding trade.

Its the same thing regarding the impoundment act of 1974, it had nothing to do with governing and everything to do with controlling the executive branch by not allowing them to stop wasteful spending.

We have gone from a room full of men from diverse backgrounds working partime in congress, to hundreds of lawyers, pretending to be congressmen, working full time to employ millions of people.......which requires 1000s of new laws and regulations so no one looks behind the curtain.

quote:

---

The decisions of the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade, which hears disputes involving international trade and customs laws, can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.
---

"The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage," a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. "That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it."

Financial markets cheered the ruling. The U.S. dollar rallied following the court's order, surging against currencies such as the euro, yen and the Swiss franc in particular. Wall Street futures rose and equities across Asia also jumped.

The judges also ordered the Trump administration to issue new orders reflecting the permanent injunction within 10 days. The Trump administration minutes later filed a notice of appeal and questioned the authority of the court.

LINK

---

So we have a set of judges who admit the strategic wisdom of tariffs. That judicial admission comes within an environment where a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has testified that the greatest security threat facing the US is our debt and ongoing deficits. We have a budgetary situation where we on the cusp of losing control over treasury rates as well as credit ratings. Meanwhile, Congress has barely issued a peep of complaint about EB usurpation of LB power, which is the entire premise of the court's imposition. Yet, this set of judges, in its infinite wisdom, denies the presence of an economic emergency, and denies it with such vigor so as to impose a permanent injunction to begin in 10 days? Well that is just great.

I feel like a basic civics lesson is needed. Under the Constitution:
-Congress writes laws (Article I)
-The President executes those laws (Article II)
-The Courts interpret those laws (Article III)

For whatever reason Congress isn't addressing trade imbalances through tariffs. Don't like it? Vote in better Congressmen.

The Court's ruling wasn't bizarre or "a judicial coup":

"A federal court on Wednesday froze most of the sweeping tariffs imposed by President Trump on virtually every foreign nation, ruling the levies exceed the president's legal authority.

The ruling — issued by a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of International Trade — halted the sweeping 10% tariffs Mr. Trump assessed on virtually every U.S. trading partner on "Liberation Day" last month, with higher tariffs threatened for dozens of countries. The court also blocked a separate set of tariffs imposed on China, Mexico and Canada by the Trump administration, which has cited drug trafficking and illegal immigration as its reasoning for the hikes.

Global markets rallied on the news.

The Trump administration has justified the tariffs by citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA, which gives the president the power to regulate imports during certain emergency situations. But the court on Wednesday rejected the government's interpretation of the law, and said it would be unconstitutional for any law passed by Congress to give the president blanket authority to set tariffs.

"The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the judges wrote Wednesday.

The court said Mr. Trump's global 10% tariffs aren't authorized by IEEPA because they're designed to deal with trade imbalances between the U.S. and the rest of the world, which the judges said should fall under non-emergency legislation.

And the China, Canada and Mexico tariffs aren't legal because they "do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders," the court also found.

The three judges who wrote Wednesday's ruling were nominated to the bench by former President Ronald Reagan, former President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump in his first term."

quote:

---

If the courts tell us that we will have to depend on Congress to save us, then we are doomed.

---

In part, because the court acknowledges the wisdom of Trump's approach, as Congress has simultaneously forwarded itself as a completely disinterested party, and quite willing to cede tariff rights to the EB in this debate. If Congress wants the responsibility, shouldn't it be making the claim?

quote:

---

Don't like it? Vote in better Congressmen.

---

We're doomed.

quote:

---

I feel like a basic civics lesson is needed.

---

Do you now?
Really?

So within the genius of your "basic civics lesson," please address the Korean WAR, the Vietnamese WAR, the Persian Gulf WAR, the WAR in Iraq, the WAR in Afghanistan with not the remotest of discussion of a Declaration of War in any of those instances.

quote:

---

Seems like the advice he gets is similar to a lot of the “advice” one would find on this board.

---

I got raked over the coals when the Canada/Mexico/China tariffs were tied to "trafficking and fentanyl" by pointing out that the tariffs weren't designed to address those "emergencies."

Reality can't be manufactured by Stephen Miller. Reality won.

quote:

---

I got raked over the coals when the Canada/Mexico/China tariffs were tied to "trafficking and fentanyl"

---

The fentanyl issue was an out from previous trade agreements, not a justification for Constitutionality of the action.

quote:

---

Link?

---

Article I of the Constitution. Yes, there have been times when the Courts have deferred to the Executive under the "political question" doctrine....that is a side show.

As to the issue at hand, Trump could have persuaded the Republican Congress to enact tariffs. Instead, he tried to invoke IEEPA. Some of us called BS at the time. We were right.