Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Tariffs

[DBCowboy]

Trumps China tariffs lasted all the way from his first term to this term.

So it looks like you can do some, just not the whole planet.

I believe it was the constitution, not foreign nations saying the executive can't dictate power. Kind of odd how suddenly a lot of people disagree with the constitution and a majority republican SCOTUS on constitutional rulings.

I'm no lawyer, but I disagree with their interpretation of the majority ruling.

[putnam6]

[chr0naut]

That screws nearly all of Trumps entire foreign policy on how to get things done.    And that means foreign countries will go back to taking advantage of America economically.   But we kind of knew that this was going to happen.

If the US economy is the largest and strongest in the world, how the hell are all these poorer countries taking unfair advantage?

Sure. there may possibly be some 'taking advantage' happening in particular situations, but overall, it isn't showing up when you look at the bigger economic picture. You don't screw with the whole successful economy to fix a few specific issues - you attend specifically with those issues. Trump is trying to straighten bent nails by disassembling the building and starting again.

Consider that banks, big, successful, profitable ones, are occasionally robbed. You don't close the banks and make it impossible for everyone to get to their money as a solution. Sometimes you have to hope that the criminals will be caught and the money recovered and sometimes, you have to simply absorb the loss. Overall, though the banks have made money even with the crimes occasionally being committed.

[CriticalStinker]

All the hyperventilating anti-Trumpers are going to be in for a surprise.

Trump has a Plan B, C, D and E for implementing his economic agenda.

The tears are not over.

Can you show how the tariffs had a positive effect?

USD 10% down, increased trade deficit, no reshoring.

Why would companies be leveraged by the tarrifs if SCOTUS said the blanket tariffs are unconstitutional? That means the rest will be too. Why should we fight for them if they didn't work?

[CriticalStinker]

I'm no lawyer, but I disagree with their interpretation of the majority ruling.

Page 15

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25...7_4gcj.pdf

Opinion of the Court

Taxes, to be sure, may accomplish regulatory ends. See Sonzinsky, 300 U. S., at 513; Gibbons, 9 Wheat., at 201– 202. But it does not follow that the power to regulate something includes the power to tax it as a means of regulation. Congressional practice suggests as much. When Congress addresses both the power to regulate and the power to tax, it does so separately and expressly. See, e.g., 16 U. S. C. §460bbb–9(a) (distinguishing between the power to “tax persons, franchise, or private property” on lands and the power “to regulate the private lands”); 2 U. S. C. §622(8)(B)(i) (“government-sponsored enterprise” does not have the “power to tax or to regulate interstate commerce”). That is unsurprising, as the “power to regulate commerce” is “entirely distinct from the right to levy taxes.” Gibbons, 9 Wheat., at 201. That Congress did not grant those authorities separately here is strong evidence that “regulate” in IEEPA does not include taxation.

A contrary reading would render IEEPA partly unconstitutional. IEEPA authorizes the President to “regulate . . . importation or exportation.” 50 U. S. C. §1702(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Taxing exports, however, is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. Art. I, §9, cl. 5. The “neighboring words” with which “regulate” “is associated” also suggest that Congress did not intend for “regulate” to include the revenue-raising power. United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 294 (2008). “Regulate” is one of nine verbs listed in §1702(a)(1)(B). Each authorizes a distinct action a President might take in sanctioning foreign actors or controlling domestic actors engaged in foreign commerce—blocking imports, for example, or prohibiting transactions. Presidential practice under IEEPA demonstrates as much. See CRS, Casey, International Emergency Economic Powers Act, at 79–106 (Table A–3); see, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13194, 3 CFR 741 (2001 Comp.) (blocking

[Vermilion]

If the US economy is the largest and strongest in the world, how the hell are all these poorer countries taking unfair advantage?

Sure. there may possibly be some 'taking advantage' happening in particular situations, but overall, it isn't showing up when you look at the bigger economic picture. You don't screw with the whole successful economy to fix a few specific issues - you attend specifically with those issues. Trump is trying to straighten bent nails by disassembling the building and starting again.

Consider that banks, big, successful, profitable ones, are occasionally robbed. You don't close the banks and make it impossible for everyone to get to their money as a solution. Sometimes you have to hope that the criminals will be caught and the money recovered and sometimes, you have to simply absorb the loss. Overall, though the banks have made money even with the crimes occasionally being committed.

Let’s say you and I each have a similar business.
Our products are essentially the same.
I pay my employees 1/4 of what you pay yours.
I buy my material for 1/4 of what you pay for yours.
I automatically have an unfair advantage, and I’ll use it.

Now does that seem like “fair trade” to you?

[chr0naut]

All the hyperventilating anti-Trumpers are going to be in for a surprise.

Trump has a Plan B, C, D and E for implementing his economic agenda.

The tears are not over.

How much do you want to bet that by the end of his term, that he will still be talking about this?

But you still think that China will pay tariffs. Nope, it will still ship its goods, and US import companies will take money out of the US economy, to pay to the government, and they will raise the cost of the goods to US consumers, to try and recoup their losses. The US economy will grow by zero from it. Tariffs are a tax upon US companies and the US people. More of their money being funnelled to the government.

[Oldcarpy2]

So, it's US businesses that are trying to claim refunds for tariffs they paid, potentially billions.

Because they pay these tariffs.

What a mess.

[cherokeetroy]

The "Mar-a-Lago Accord" is a proposed economic strategy, driven by advisor Stephen Miran, using aggressive tariffs to force international negotiations, weaken the US dollar, and reduce trade deficits. It acts as a 2020s version of the 1985 Plaza Accord, aiming to boost US manufacturing by disrupting global trade. 
 

• Tariff Usage: The plan uses tariffs to shatter the existing economic order and drive countries to the negotiating table.
  
•  
  
• Targeted Outcome: The goal is to force allies to accept a lower-valued US dollar, which the administration believes will revive domestic manufacturing and reduce the trade deficit.
  
•  
  
• Security Link: Countries that refuse to participate in this trade restructuring may face continued or increased tariffs and potential changes to their U.S. defense umbrella (e.g., NATO).
  
•  
  
• Retaliation Strategy: Should allies retaliate with their own tariffs, the administration might view it as a win, encouraging further decoupling, especially with China.
  
•  
  
• Risks: Proponents argue this strategy may be self-defeating for the US in the long run, potentially triggering instability, causing global financial panic, and damaging the dollar's status as a reserve currency. 
  
•  
  

The proposal is designed to address what the administration views as an overvalued dollar that disadvantages American industry, as discussed by CEPR and Nordea. 





https://economics.td.com/domains/economi...Accord.pdf

[Oldcarpy2]

So, he's now raising his stupid tariffs to 15%.

He's acting like a spiteful spoilt child.

Is this the best the US has?