At the Supreme Court, a debate over whether tariffs are taxes

Jake Starkey said:
It's fun watching Truth Detector implode.
Click to expand...
:lolup: Classic projection. :laugh:

200.webp
 
Truth Detector said:
Arguments that attempt to suggest that Tariffs are a tax are uneducated, ignorant and laughably dumb.

At the Supreme Court, a debate over whether tariffs are taxes​

Spoiler alert: They're not

When the Supreme Court heard arguments last week on President Trump’s emergency tariffs, plaintiffs opposed to the tariffs insisted, “Tariffs are taxes.” That framing gets history and the law wrong.

Tariffs are NOT taxes. They are instruments of foreign commerce regulation and national defense, long recognized as distinct from Congress’ domestic taxing power. That distinction is not a technicality; it is constitutional with deep roots.

The constitutional test for distinguishing a tax from a regulatory duty is simple. A tax raises general revenue for domestic spending; a tariff regulates foreign commerce. Any revenue that results from a tariff is incidental to its regulatory purpose, much like fines or license fees that accompany environmental or banking rules. Tariffs are thus a classic expression of the power to regulate foreign trade, not the power to tax American citizens.

At the Constitutional Convention, the framers granted Congress the power to impose “Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” The separation was deliberate: Duties and imposts were not taxes. They were instruments of trade and national policy, not domestic revenue in the modern sense.

In 18th-century language, imposts referred to what we now call tariffs. The first Congress enacted the nation’s first imposts in 1789, levying duties on imports including British textiles, Caribbean sugar and European glassware. They were imposed in part for “the encouragement and protection of manufactures,” as the statute itself declared.

When President Lincoln later championed “protective tariffs,” he referred to them as “a system of defense,” not a revenue scheme. That founding logic has carried forward into modern law.

In Federal Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG (1976), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld President Ford’s import fees on foreign oil under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Opponents claimed those fees were taxes; the court disagreed. As the justices explained, “The imposition of a license fee on imports is a method of achieving the permitted end — adjustment of imports — no less than the use of quotas.”

Click to expand...
Using your “examiner’s” logic explain to us how the SCOTUS defined the ACA as a tax

(given there is no applicable “examiner” op Ed piece “copy and paste” he can copy and paste to answer the question get ready for the predictable “you brain dead, uninformed moron……..” adolescent crapola he’s famous for)
 
Truth Detector said:
At the Supreme Court, a debate over whether tariffs are taxes
Click to expand...
If it is taxes, it is under the authority of Congress. If it is duties, and somehow not taxes, it is under the authority of Congress. If it is a law, and somehow not taxes or duties, it is under the authority of Congress.

If it is not a law, it is illegal, and trump cannot just grab people's money.
 
Jake Starkey said:
Truth Detector: Classic projection.
Click to expand...

:lolup: Does nothing but project.

dumb
adjective
\ ˈdəm \

1a: lacking intelligence : STUPID
b: showing a lack of intelligence
c: requiring no intelligence
d: not having the capability to process data


Jake Starkey said:
Jake Starkey: T D is such a gas lighter. Most maga are.
Click to expand...

More projection.

ignorance
/ĭg′nər-əns/
noun

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

The condition of being ignorant; the lack of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed.

A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have.
 
archives said:
Using your “examiner’s” logic explain to us how the SCOTUS defined the ACA as a tax
Click to expand...

It was a tax. We are paying trillions for that miserably failed not one Republican voted for piece of legislation.

archives said:
(given there is no applicable “examiner” op Ed piece “copy and paste” he can copy and paste to answer the question get ready for the predictable “you brain dead, uninformed moron……..” adolescent crapola he’s famous for)
Click to expand...

You're the dumbest, most asinine dunce I have seen on public forums. All you do it lie, cry and look ignorant. A Ralphy reincarnated. :laugh:

200.webp
 
Walt said:
If it is taxes, it is under the authority of Congress. If it is duties, and somehow not taxes, it is under the authority of Congress. If it is a law, and somehow not taxes or duties, it is under the authority of Congress.
Click to expand...

You make stupid shit up. Congress has delegated that authority. Congress can be the ONLY party to whether or not the President can use Tariffs to negotiate and manage our trade partners. Congress is not designed or equipped to usurp that from the Executive branch. It is a deliberative body which cannot act quickly in such situations.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act's enactment in 1977, including its use to impose tariffs on imports from almost all countries in 2025, have caused some Members of Congress and policy analysts to question whether the statute's oversight provisions are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a declared emergency.


Walt said:
If it is not a law, it is illegal, and trump cannot just grab people's money.
Click to expand...

Another moronic statement lacking in facts, common sense or reality. See above dumbass. :palm:
 
Jake Starkey said:
Taxes and tariffs are subject to Congress.
Click to expand...

Because brainless idiots like you say so. But that doesn't make it so dipshit. Now you could stupidly argue there is no emergency. But no one has made a coherent argument suggesting that.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a declared emergency.

 
Truth Detector said:
A tariff operates on the same principle: a “monetary exaction” imposed at the border to regulate trade, not to raise revenue. What matters is purpose. If the goal is to adjust trade flows or protect national security, it is not a tax.

The same principle applies to Mr. Trump’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which reads: “The President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise … investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit” any importation of “any property in which … any foreign person has any interest” when confronting an “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad.

A straightforward textual reading shows that Congress intended to give the president a broad range of authorities to confront whatever emergency he may face. By linking the specific words “regulate” and “importation,” the statute covers the full range of economic measures used to regulate foreign commerce.

As the solicitor general and the statute itself make clear, it would defy logic and history to permit a president to prohibit all imports from a hostile power yet deny him the lesser authority to regulate those imports through a tariff. The greater power necessarily includes the lesser.

A president defending Americans, not taxing them

Plaintiffs and other critics argue that tariffs are merely a “tax on consumers,” but experience says otherwise. The Trump tariffs during the president’s first term — on steel, aluminum and strategic Chinese imports — produced virtually no measurable inflation. Consumer prices stayed flat even as hundreds of billions of dollars in goods were covered.

Why? Because foreign producers, importers and subsidiaries absorbed most of the cost. That outcome makes perfect economic sense; access to the U.S. market is existential for many foreign economies. They can’t afford to lose it, so they cut prices, absorb margins and keep shipping.

This is the invisible success of tariffs as a regulatory tool. By compelling foreigners to bear the cost of their own mercantilist behavior, tariffs achieve precisely what the Constitution and two centuries of precedent envision: using America’s market power to regulate foreign conduct without burdening Americans at home. That is the opposite of a tax; it is the lawful regulation of foreign trade: an exercise of the nation’s economic sovereignty.

As the solicitor general noted, the best outcome is when no tariffs are paid at all because the conduct changes. That is the essence of regulation, not taxation: success measured not by revenue but by results.

The Founders vested this nation with the power to regulate its commerce and the responsibility to defend it. That principle — that tariffs are not taxes but instruments of national policy — has been acknowledged since the founding and remains true today. When a president uses tariffs to defend the nation’s economic interests, he isn’t taxing Americans; he is defending them.
Click to expand...
An idiotic argument since your source says tariffs are the same as imposts.
The US Constituiton says this -

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Congress is given the power to impose tariffs. The President is NOT given that power in the Constitution. Whether a tariff is a tax has no bearing on whether Congress was given the power to impose tariffs.
 
Truth Detector said:
Well, the other argument is that although they argue that Congress controls the purse strings and approves treaties, what they don't want to acknowledge about all these crazed activists' jurists ruling against Trump is that Congress is the only party to an issue involving Executive and Legislative powers disputes, not outside parties like unions, political 501s etc.

With that argument, it is also obvious that Congress has not taken issue with these tariffs and has delegated that presumed power.
Click to expand...
Congress can't delegate a Constitutional power. It would violate the Constitution.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
An idiotic argument since your source says tariffs are the same as imposts.
The US Constituiton says this -

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Congress is given the power to impose tariffs. The President is NOT given that power in the Constitution. Whether a tariff is a tax has no bearing on whether Congress was given the power to impose tariffs.
Click to expand...
Moron: they deliberately separated duties, excises and imposts from taxes. That's because a tariff is not a tax. It is a form of diplomacy to protect US interests. DUH.

Has Congress passed any legislation suggesting that the President is not acting within his authority halfwit?

(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.

(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.

www.law.cornell.edu

50 U.S. Code § 1701 - Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
 
Truth Detector said:
Moron: they deliberately separated duties, excises and imposts from taxes. That's because a tariff is not a tax. It is a form of diplomacy to protect US interests. DUH.

Has Congress passed any legislation suggesting that the President is not acting within his authority halfwit?

(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.

(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.

www.law.cornell.edu

50 U.S. Code § 1701 - Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
Yeah. You clearly are unable to read English or understand it.

(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat,which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.

(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared

When did Trump declare a national emergency? What is the unusual threat?
 
Truth Detector said:
It was a tax. We are paying trillions for that miserably failed not one Republican voted for piece of legislation.



You're the dumbest, most asinine dunce I have seen on public forums. All you do it lie, cry and look ignorant. A Ralphy reincarnated. :laugh:

200.webp
Click to expand...
Thanks, proved my point, the SCOTUS argument on the ACA would apply to tariffs, and by the way, if you want to go there, no Democrat voted for the “Big + Beautiful Bill,” in fact three Republicans even voted against it, Vance had to be called in to get it thru a dominated GOP Congress. And to show you what a debacle of is even Trump wants to change its name before the midterms

The second part of your idiocy proved my prediction, 100%, never doubted it wouldn’t

Thanks, that was easy
 
Truth Detector said:
:lolup: Does nothing but project.

dumb
adjective
\ ˈdəm \

1a: lacking intelligence : STUPID
b: showing a lack of intelligence
c: requiring no intelligence
d: not having the capability to process data




More projection.

ignorance
/ĭg′nər-əns/
noun

The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

The condition of being ignorant; the lack of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed.

A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have.
Click to expand...
:pleasedramsay:
 
Truth Detector said:
Congress has delegated that authority.
Click to expand...
So we agree that it is Congress' authority to use or delegate? Congress has specifically delegated some limited tariff powers to the president, but trump has gone well past that limited delegation. There is no such thing as a non delegation delegation, so trump is out of luck for most of the tariffs.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Yeah. You clearly are unable to read English or understand it.

(a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat,which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.

(b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared

When did Trump declare a national emergency? What is the unusual threat?
Click to expand...
Yes, and an unusual and extraordinary threat was declared halfwit. You think Congress has to declare it? Moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top