Not so much. The case today is statutory, not constitutional. And applies only to IEEPA. So not correct x2. Tariffs are quite constitutional, and potus will use many other tariffs authorities to make them stick.
I am not sure what you were reading, my friend, but I never said tariffs were unconstitutional. In fact, they were our new nation’s primary funding source. What I said was that IEEPA did not allow tariffs, and that the idea of arbitrary tariffs set by the President was an infringement on Congress’s well detailed Sec. I, Article 8 power. The President will see to use other laws at his disposal, but what he will find is that they are more structured, have time-limits, and considerable reporting requirements.
Whether a case involves constitutionality or not isn’t ever semantics. In this case, the Court’s focus and decision on the statutory question mooted the constitutional issue: the 2d of the 3 questions presented by the case would have required the Court to decide whether the Congress could give away that power in IEEPA. Since the Court first ruled the Congress hadn’t tried to do so, no constitutional question was reached.
It’s a strange and expensive circus when the highest court in the land has to moonlight as a civics tutor. https://open.substack.com/pub/growingupaspen/p/civics-class-from-hell-taxpayer-edition?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Not so much. The case today is statutory, not constitutional. And applies only to IEEPA. So not correct x2. Tariffs are quite constitutional, and potus will use many other tariffs authorities to make them stick.
I am not sure what you were reading, my friend, but I never said tariffs were unconstitutional. In fact, they were our new nation’s primary funding source. What I said was that IEEPA did not allow tariffs, and that the idea of arbitrary tariffs set by the President was an infringement on Congress’s well detailed Sec. I, Article 8 power. The President will see to use other laws at his disposal, but what he will find is that they are more structured, have time-limits, and considerable reporting requirements.
Whether a case involves constitutionality or not isn’t ever semantics. In this case, the Court’s focus and decision on the statutory question mooted the constitutional issue: the 2d of the 3 questions presented by the case would have required the Court to decide whether the Congress could give away that power in IEEPA. Since the Court first ruled the Congress hadn’t tried to do so, no constitutional question was reached.
Your title is “Trump’s Tariffs are not constitutional”. That’s just the title. I could point out flaws in the body as well.
I guess I see the semantics. Clearly I was referring to his Liberation Day tariffs, but your language is more precise.