Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/us-court-blocks-most-trump-tariffs-says-president-exceeded-his-authority.22923/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

US court blocks most Trump tariffs, says president exceeded his authority

hist78

hist78

Well-known member
  • - Court cites that Constitution grants Congress power to regulate international commerce
  • - Markets cheer ruling, dollar and global stocks rally
  • - Trump administration files notice of appeal, questions authority of the court
NEW YORK, May 28 (Reuters) - A U.S. trade court blocked President Donald Trump's tariffs from going into effect in a sweeping ruling on Wednesday that found the president overstepped his authority by imposing across-the-board duties on imports from U.S. trading partners.

The Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce with other countries that is not overridden by the president's emergency powers to safeguard the U.S. economy.

"The court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage," a three-judge panel said in the decision to issue a permanent injunction on the blanket tariff orders issued by Trump since January. "That use is impermissible not because it is unwise or ineffective, but because [federal law] does not allow it."

 
Last edited:
It has nothing to do "justice" or "keeping in check". These are all globalist controlled judges. The only mission is to prevent or at least slow down maga agenda (as it is a direct threat to globalist blob control). These 'rule of law' and 'world justice' lawfare programs have plagued and corrupted the law systems around the world for a long time, most of these programs were previously funded by usaid. Check for example brazil, romania and france in the recent years. The idea is that if the blob loses or may lose in elections they can then do a juridical coup anyway. El Salvador had this same kind of juridical coup going on some years ago, they had to fire all the soros funded judges protecting gang criminals etc in order to get democracy and freedom, fortunately El Salvador was successful.

But the world is in a crazy place and the west is going down unfortunately, this lawfare craziness is one part of the reason. Lets see what happens during the summer, never a dull moment for sure. Luckily the semi business has some of the strongest fundamentals behind it.
 
muug said:
It has nothing to do "justice" or "keeping in check". These are all globalist controlled judges. The only mission is to prevent or at least slow down maga agenda (as it is a direct threat to globalist blob control). These 'rule of law' and 'world justice' lawfare programs have plagued and corrupted the law systems around the world for a long time, most of these programs were previously funded by usaid. Check for example brazil, romania and france in the recent years. The idea is that if the blob loses or may lose in elections they can then do a juridical coup anyway. El Salvador had this same kind of juridical coup going on some years ago, they had to fire all the soros funded judges protecting gang criminals etc in order to get democracy and freedom, fortunately El Salvador was successful.

But the world is in a crazy place and the west is going down unfortunately, this lawfare craziness is one part of the reason. Let’s see what happens during the summer, never a dull moment for sure. Luckily the semi business has some of the strongest fundamentals behind it.
Click to expand...
What?????
 
In this particular case, the consideration is fairly straightforward.

Tariffs are essentially taxes paid by everyone in the US. Any sweeping changes or increases/decreases in tariffs that Trump intends to implement must go through the US Congress for debate and approval. This is a critical process in a democratic system.
 
blueone said:
An appeals court reinstated Trump's tariffs overturned by the lower trade court.
Click to expand...
The appeals court reinstatement was only a "pause".

At the moment, all three branches of the US government look disorganized and unprofessional. Their HR groups should put all senior leaders in each branch on a PIP.
 
hist78 said:
Tariffs are taxes and it must go through the Congress for debate and approval.
Click to expand...
That's what the Constitution says, but Congress has delegated tariff authority to the President. Some light reading on the topic from an authoritative source:


To make matters worse, in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, Congress also delegated the authority to the President to define what an emergency is.

And, to top off all of this legislative stupidity, if Congress tries to change the tariff laws by passing new ones, the President can veto the new laws. Overriding a veto takes 2/3 majorities in the House and the Senate, which, of course, are very unlikely.
 
blueone said:
That's what the Constitution says, but Congress has delegated tariff authority to the President. Some light reading on the topic from an authoritative source:


To make matters worse, in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, Congress also delegated the authority to the President to define what an emergency is.

And, to top off all of this legislative stupidity, if Congress tries to change the tariff laws by passing new ones, the President can veto the new laws. Overriding a veto takes 2/3 majorities in the House and the Senate, which, of course, are very unlikely.
Click to expand...
Wow and now it is backfiring 🤣
 
siliconbruh999 said:
Wow and now it is backfiring 🤣
Click to expand...
Yup. There has never been another "Catch me if you can!" President that I'm aware of, so I hope Congress is learning a lesson here. The separation of powers exist for a reason. It's a good thing the Supreme Court is mostly keeping the lower courts in line too, because lower court federal judges have been in the "Catch me if you can" mode for a long time. And nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts (e.g. any court other than the Supreme Court) are bad ideas too. Right now the support for broad presidential power is mostly along partisan lines, but hopefully party leaders understand that the opposition may come to power and learn from Trump's tricks, making their lives complicated.
 
blueone said:
Yup. There has never been another "Catch me if you can!" President that I'm aware of, so I hope Congress is learning a lesson here. The separation of powers exist for a reason. It's a good thing the Supreme Court is mostly keeping the lower courts in line too, because lower court federal judges have been in the "Catch me if you can" mode for a long time. And nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts (e.g. any court other than the Supreme Court) are bad ideas too. Right now the support for broad presidential power is mostly along partisan lines, but hopefully party leaders understand that the opposition may come to power and learn from Trump's tricks, making their lives complicated.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the ruling of the lower court based on US supreme court's own precedents?
 
Paul2 said:
Wasn't the ruling of the lower court based on US supreme court's own precedents?
Click to expand...
Not that I can discern. You can read the CIT ruling for yourself.


If you go back and compare the precedents cited in this document to the Supreme Court precedents cited in the Congressional document I posted earlier, I don't see much if any overlap between the two. The ICT ruling reads a lot like the three judges made up their minds prior to hearing any arguments, and then composed an obscure and not well written document to support their positions.

It will be interesting to see what happens on appeal. Personally, I am a tariff detractor, and I would cheer if Trump ultimately loses. If the appeals court sides with Trump, and they very well might, I'm sure this issue will get appealed to the Supreme Court. One tool the Supreme Court has that is a unique right among federal courts is to decide just to uphold the lower court's ruling and to not hear the case. I'd make a small bet this might be their decision. I think there are still several possible outcomes here, but the drama may take a while to play out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top