- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If Trump enacts the same tariffs via proper statutes, that won't violate this USSC ruling
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:31 am
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:31 am
Presidents have two types of authority; (1) Specific authority granted by the Constitution and (2) Authority granted to the executive by Congress to administer the laws passed by Congress (statutory authority).
In the example above, Trump tried to use the executive authority granted to the President via Congress's IEEPA, so this is an example of statutory authority. Basically, Trump attempted to engage in executive action that was outside of the authority granted to him by Congress, specifically the IEEPA. This order was not a general ruling on "tariffs" (as is reported in certain partisan echo chambers) , and was exclusively about the authority given to the President via this specific statute.
Trump enacting new tariffs under proper statutes would also via statutory authority, however it would be via a completely different act of Congress that was specifically passed to authorize tariffs. Now, would the Trump admin be engaging in some executive action pursuant to the statutory authority under a proper statute? Yes. Why would it be legal? These other statutes give him clear authority for tariffs when they were passed, to permit the admin to administer the tariffs.
So Trump's admin acting under a completely different statute, engaging in the specific statutory authority given to his executive, has nothing to do with the unlawful attempts by his admin under the IEEPA. This is why Trump would not be violating or ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling.
In the example above, Trump tried to use the executive authority granted to the President via Congress's IEEPA, so this is an example of statutory authority. Basically, Trump attempted to engage in executive action that was outside of the authority granted to him by Congress, specifically the IEEPA. This order was not a general ruling on "tariffs" (as is reported in certain partisan echo chambers) , and was exclusively about the authority given to the President via this specific statute.
Trump enacting new tariffs under proper statutes would also via statutory authority, however it would be via a completely different act of Congress that was specifically passed to authorize tariffs. Now, would the Trump admin be engaging in some executive action pursuant to the statutory authority under a proper statute? Yes. Why would it be legal? These other statutes give him clear authority for tariffs when they were passed, to permit the admin to administer the tariffs.
So Trump's admin acting under a completely different statute, engaging in the specific statutory authority given to his executive, has nothing to do with the unlawful attempts by his admin under the IEEPA. This is why Trump would not be violating or ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling.
8
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
Turley and other analysts have been saying all morning that it will be a lift, but he can easily go back and redo it all... The problem is what happens with the refunds in the meantime and the likes.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:35 am to Lsut81
quote:
The problem is what happens with the refunds
That's going to be a mess.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:37 am to Lsut81
quote:
The problem is what happens with the refunds in the meantime and the likes.
Unenforceable
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's going to be a mess.
Saw some group of 800 small businesses already sent letters to congress and the WH demanding refunds for what they paid in tariffs.
Whats going to get interesting is the consumers. You know those businesses didn't eat the tariffs, so if a consumer comes and demands refunds from the businesses, what happens?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Ignore refunds, continue tariffs under other means
That's going to be a mess.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:38 am to hogcard1964
quote:
Unenforceable
What?
Government seized that money illegally.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:38 am to Lsut81
quote:
but he can easily go back and redo it all.
From my understanding, "Plan B" involves a lot more leg work for POTUS to enact a tariff. This is why the broad tariffs on steel and other commodities were not part of this tariff decision. It could be easily demonstrated that steel is a matter of national security, etc.
That is a far cry from saying the trade deficit with Sri Lanka is a matter of national security.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:38 am to NotChexMix
quote:
Ignore refunds
Permitting the government to literally steal money (not in the cheeky "taxes are theft" way, but actual theft via illegal actions) is a quick way to impeachment and possibly removal.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:oh the irony
Permitting the government to literally steal money
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What?
Government seized that money illegally.
Did the ruling say to pay it back. If so, how did they say do it and by when?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:41 am to NotChexMix
quote:
oh the irony
What irony? I assume you didn't read the rest.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:typical
I assume
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:42 am to Warboo
quote:
Did the ruling say to pay it back.
Why would it need to?
quote:
If so, how did they say do it and by when?
That's not their job. Their job is to determine if the action was lawful or not, and they declared the action to be illegal.
Which means all the money seized was done illegally.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:42 am to NotChexMix
So explain the irony around this
quote:
(not in the cheeky "taxes are theft" way, but actual theft via illegal actions)
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:44 am to Lsut81
I wish this got settled and rewritten. And Trump called out the CCP for covid monies we lost.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
When not trying to be smug your voice is on point. Do less is doing more
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:46 am to SlowFlowPro
The irony is that your demon rat overlords were the ones stealing from the government. Not the other way around.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 11:47 am
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The question is what happens to the monies already collected. Lawfirms are licking their chops.
If Trump enacts the same tariffs via proper statutes, that won't violate this USSC ruling
Posted on 2/20/26 at 11:48 am to whereishobson
quote:
The irony is that your demon rat overlords were the ones stealing from the government. Not the other way around.
Hail ratman
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News