foregoneconclusion

Tahoe? Seems a bit blah for such a major release.

The key point, which is made in this article, is that the 1st Trump administration withdrew from NAFTA/TPP trade agreements and did new deals which were publicly promoted by Donald Trump as being significantly better than what they replaced. So it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense that Trump's 2nd administration is claiming trade with China, Mexico and Canada constitutes an "emergency". On top of that, use of the IEEPA to levy tariffs is blatantly unconstitutional going by the standard that the Supreme Court already set with the Biden administration's attempt at using the HEROES Act to forgive student loan debt. 

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

randominternetperson said: What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as said those tariffs are null and void?

That would be obvious obstruction and contempt of court. A federal judge could potentially have U.S. Marshalls arrest officials involved in that. 

One issue with that is that the U.S. Marshalls are under the Dept. of Justice.  The Dept. of Justice is under Trump.

This can make it problematic for the courts to enforce rulings against the wishes of a sitting President.

U.S. Marshalls serve both the DOJ and the Federal judiciary. Separation of powers = judge doesn't need sign-off from DOJ. 

randominternetperson said: What happens when the Sec of Homeland Security orders her U.S. Customs and Border Production officers to collect tariff revenue from ships in port after a court as said those tariffs are null and void?

That would be obvious obstruction and contempt of court. A federal judge could potentially have U.S. Marshalls arrest officials involved in that. 

Jim_MAY said:

The Trump Administration will advance an appeal to the Supreme Court. Congress gave tariff powers to the Presidents long ago.

The Trump administration declared an emergency under the IEEPA statute to levy tariffs. But the IEEPA statute doesn't mention tariffs or taxes as a power that was granted under the IEEPA by Congress. In fact, the IEEPA has never been used by the executive to levy tariffs. It's only been used to apply sanctions to foreign countries. Per the Supreme Court, any statute used by the executive branch that has significant economic/political impact MUST contain specific language that supports the way the executive is using it. The SC has called this the Major Questions Doctrine. Since the IEEPA doesn't contain any language that specifies tariffs as a power granted by Congress, the Trump administration's use of the statute fails the Major Questions Doctrine and is unconstitutional as a result.

An example of this would be the Biden administration's first attempt at forgiving student loan debt under the HEROES Act. A lawsuit was filed that challenged the use of the statute for that purpose. The SC ultimately ruled that the HEROES Act didn't contain language specific enough to support the actions being taken by the executive and ruled the use to be unconstitutional. So if student loan forgiveness is considered a big enough economic/political issue for the SC to apply the Major Questions Doctrine, then the tariff actions by the Trump administration will obviously qualify as well.