foregoneconclusion

9secondkox2 said: Then when September hits and things have cooled a bit 

Things are definitely going to "cool off" when the obviously unconstitutional use of the IEEPA is ruled unconstitutional. 

This is all illegal and unconstitutional. The IEEPA is intended to be used for sanctions against foreign governments. It make no mention of tariffs or taxes. 

"Under art. 1, § 8 of the Constitution, Congress has sole authority to control tariffs, which it has done by passing detailed tariff statutes. The President cannot bypass those statutes by invoking “emergency” authority in another statute that does not mention tariffs. His attempt to use the IEEPA this way not only violates the law as written, but it also invites application of the Supreme Court’s Major Questions Doctrine, which tells courts not to discern policies of “vast economic and political significance” in a law without explicit congressional authorization. If the IEEPA were held to permit this executive order, then the statute would run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine because it lacks an “intelligible principle” to limit or guide the president’s discretion in imposing tariffs."

https://nclalegal.org/press_release/ncla-sues-to-stop-trump-admin-from-imposing-emergency-tariffs-that-congress-never-authorized/

bloggerblog said:

cogitodexter said:

This is lunacy.

And people used to complain about Biden being senile...

These are the presidential choices we're getting nowadays, senile vs lunatic. Take your pick!

Sorry...the supposedly "senile" Biden dropped out and voters could have chosen Kamala Harris. Instead, they picked the guy that gave them senility and insanity in the same package.

Cool_Bananas said: We want that debt to go down, so this is the way to do it.

No, the way to make the debt "go down" would have been to continue the tax surplus that existed in Bill Clinton's final term in office. There was a bipartisan agreement to use the surplus to pay down the debt and it was definitely declining before George W. Bush took office.

But then George W. Bush started up deficit spending again. He did a huge tax cut that was not offset and created large amounts of debt. He invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. And the lack of financial regulations ushered in the Great Recession and a gigantic drop in tax revenue due to the equally gigantic decline in economic activity. Barack Obama managed to get the economy back on track in the next eight years but the huge costs of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and the Bush tax cuts remained while Republicans in Congress demanded austerity. But then Donald Trump was elected and the GOP immediately abandoned austerity and did a $2 trillion tax cut. That added another colossal amount of debt to the balance sheet and was followed by Trump's bungling of the Covid pandemic. 

Sorry Trump, the IEEPA doesn't really give you the authority to levy tariffs.

https://abc13.com/post/businesses-conservative-lawyers-planning-legal-challenge-trumps-tariffs/16139325/

"But the IEEPA -- which specifically cites the power to impose sanctions and seize foreign assets -- does not mention tariffs. And, even if one argues the right to impose tariffs is implied, it's not clear what "national emergency" could justify the imposition of global tariffs.

"There is a strong argument that the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA are not legal or constitutional," a prominent conservative lawyer close to President Trump told ABC News. "Under that particular statute, tariffs are not listed amongst the various actions a president can take in response to the declaration of a nation emergency."

The lawyer adds: "And when you combine that with the fact that Article 1, Section 8 [of the Constitution] clearly gives Congress the power to impose duties -- tariffs -- I think those two things in combination raise a very, very serious legal question."

No president has ever previously issued tariffs under the IEEPA.