- 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
re: Fed Appeals Court rules most Trump tariffs illegal, next step Supreme Court
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:33 am to dafif
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:33 am to dafif
quote:
what point ?
That Congress has to pass laws authorizing tariffs.
It wasn't complicated
quote:
I also dont think people are arguing that the president has not been given very broad statutory authority to levy tariffs by congress under many circumstances that apply here.
There is only one circumstance that applies here: The IEEPA
That's the law he relied on to enact these tariffs. The ruling is specific to that specific law.
quote:
This case involves the extent of the President’s authority under IEEPA to “regulate” importation in response to a national emergency declared by the President
quote:
.if there is a valid reason to uphold an action by the appellant, (Trump) even if not argued in the lower court, the appellate court will uphold the action under the lawful means.
This isn't about the arguments in court.
This is about the authorization of executive power and which statute the administration relied on to exercise that purported power.
This post was edited on 8/30/25 at 8:35 am
0
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:34 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Let's put our fate in the hands of a disfunctional and corrupt group
Sounds like a plan.
Let me introduce you to the little document we like to call The Constitution of the United States..
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:38 am to Powerman
quote:
We'll just throw all the J6 figs back in jail then
Who is we? You, SFP and your purses?
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:39 am to dafif
quote:
I noticed you did not address the obamacare example
I actually did not see you replied to my post until I was going to find the quoted language of the case. I will here.
quote:
. As an example, I believe you probably were in full support of obamacare as being constitutional
Wrong. Incredibly wrong.
quote:
where Roberts found it to be a tax and thus constitutional despite not being argued in the lower courts.
And that's an argument example, which doesn't apply here.
And it's not really applicable as the statute in question was being attacked in that ruling. That was a pure Constitutional analysis.
This case involves a statutory analysis. The admin is restricted to the statute they chose, and the court is restricted to analyzing that particular statute and the particular exercise in executive power.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:40 am to SDVTiger
quote:
respond to a foreign country's unfair trade practices
Buying less than you sell is not an unfair trade practice and this is what the whole convulated tariff charts were about. Trade imbalances and not duty imbalances which is the power he has to correct.
This post was edited on 8/30/25 at 8:45 am
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:40 am to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
The Constitution of the United States.
I love the original version of it that wasn't corrupted in the early 20th century.
You see, I'm not for destroying the Constitution, it's already been damaged.
I'm for re-founding the Constitution.
This post was edited on 8/30/25 at 8:48 am
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:46 am to TrueTiger
Yeah, those women and pesky negros don't belong in the constitution.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:49 am to VABuckeye
quote:
Buying less than you sell is not an unfair trade practice and this is what the whole convulated tariff charts were about. Trade imbalances and not duty imbalances which is the power he has to correct.
Then you agree those countries should drop all tariffs against us and have free trade
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:51 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I love the original version of it that wasn't corrupted in the early 20th century.
You see, I'm not for destroying the Constitution, it's already been damaged.
I'm for re-founding the Constitution.
The constitution was meant to be amended because the people that wrote it were smarter than your dumb arse and knew that it had to be flexible
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:55 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Let's put our fate in the hands of a disfunctional and corrupt group
quote:
I'm for re-founding the Constitution.
Your two statements are irreconcilable. The "original version" of the Constitution intended Congress to have all the power, because it is the voice of the people.
It is called "The Executive Branch" because it is supposed to Execute the instructions from Congress.
I will grant you that Congress is corrupt and worthless. The solution is NOT to vest authority in the Executive branch.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:56 am to slackster
The sads are going to hit some of y'all when the SCOTUS rules on this.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 8:56 am to LawTalkingGuy
quote:
The solution is NOT to vest authority in the Executive branch.
The solution is to get a better Congress.
And we're never going to get that with universal suffrage.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
do you think Presidents should be able to violate the law/Constitution if it "heals and makes the economy stronger"?
Interesting question. It worked for Lincoln.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 9:07 am to Powerman
quote:
and knew that it had to be flexible
Thank goodness.
It's time to flex it back.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 9:13 am to TrueTiger
Desantis and others are trying hard to get a term limits and balanced budget amendments passed. Two very popular topics with widespread support by both sides of the political spectrum.
And neither will happen. You may not see another constitutional amendment in your lifetime. We are too fractured to get that support for anything.
And neither will happen. You may not see another constitutional amendment in your lifetime. We are too fractured to get that support for anything.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 9:14 am to BFIV
The tariffs will still be in effect until the SCOTUS rules on it next year. Then if they rule against it he will just put them back in place under a different law. Trump is playing 4d chess. This is a big nothing just like always.
This post was edited on 8/30/25 at 9:15 am
Posted on 8/30/25 at 9:20 am to dafif
quote:
Tariff Act of 1930 – Section 338 Reciprocal treatment Allows the President to impose retaliatory tariffs if other countries discriminate against U.S. exports
Seems this would justify the president to impose tariffs. If the court doesn't agree, they shouldn't be able to cancel ALL tariffs, but consider if tariffs are justified in each individual countries case(whether or not that country discriminates against US exports).
This post was edited on 8/30/25 at 9:24 am
Posted on 8/30/25 at 9:20 am to SlowFlowPro
So much of this thread is ignoring what the case at issue actually held.
The case did NOT hold that the statute does not authorize the imposition by the President of any tariffs at all. The 7-judge majority expressly said their decision was NOT addressing that issue. And the 4-judge dissent expressly opined that the statute does authorize such imposition of tariffs.
Thus, the numerous statements in this thread to the effect that the statute does not permit the imposition of tariffs are disingenuous (or, at best, misguided).
The case did NOT hold that the statute does not authorize the imposition by the President of any tariffs at all. The 7-judge majority expressly said their decision was NOT addressing that issue. And the 4-judge dissent expressly opined that the statute does authorize such imposition of tariffs.
Thus, the numerous statements in this thread to the effect that the statute does not permit the imposition of tariffs are disingenuous (or, at best, misguided).
This post was edited on 8/30/25 at 10:08 am
Posted on 8/30/25 at 9:21 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
And neither will happen. You may not see another constitutional amendment in your lifetime.
Probably right.
Which means that the only remaining method to refound the Constitution is the method used in its original founding.
Revolution.
Posted on 8/30/25 at 9:22 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
Seems this would justify the president to impose tariffs.
Why didn't Trump use it, then, is the question.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News