I don’t know what will happen with the case on tariffs before the Supreme Court. What I hope will happen is that the Court will rule that the president has the authority to apply short-term tariffs “in case of emergency”, “short-term” being defined as 150 days, but permanent tariffs require an act of Congress.
The other story of the day is the outcome of yesterday’s elections. None of that happened in Illinois or Chicago so I will refrain from commenting otherwise. I would presume that that the results indicate that the Democratic brand was not as tarnished as some had feared. There are still plenty of people in “blue” cities and states who vote for whatever candidate is running as a Democrat.
I would hope that they require Trump to produce a valid definition of emergency. That the power of taxation should remain with Congress. But it largely doesnt matter. SCOTUS are largely just Trump cheerleaders now so they will approve.
Steve
I wish the Congress would do that. There are active “emergencies” that have been in progress for a decade or more.
I stick to what I think back in the summer when the legality was first challenged.
My belief the court will hold that tariff is a power conferred by the IEEPA; the recent understanding with China to reduce some of the “fentanyl” tariffs for Chinese cooperation on fentanyl precursors to deal with the fentanyl crisis is an example of what the powers granted under the IEEPA is supposed to achieve.
But the court will serious limit the IEEPA’s general application such that it is for emergencies. First, the baseline 10% tariff goes because Congress passed a specific time-limited power to impose duties to deal with balance of trade (i.e. trade deficit) issues. The “reciprical” tariffs may fail for a similar reason; the President has other tariff power (section “201”, “301”, ‘338″) to redress trading practices of other countries that the United States is unhappy with — but they require more process then the IEEPA. It maybe wrapped around some legal doctrine that when an emergency is first declared, the executive is at its strongest position in utilizing the IEEPA or other “emergency legal provisions” vs other laws, but overtime the burden falls to the executive that the emergency justifies IEEPA vs other laws with procedural safeguards.
I suspect the court will find some means that the tariff revenue collected won’t be refunded. The Supreme Court can read Federal Budget summaries, they know the Federal government needs the money.
One other thing, I would support a limited constitutional amendment that Congress can override a Presidential veto with a 1/2 majority instead of 2/3 majority for any bill limited to Congress revoking legislative clauses where it delegated power to the executive or other authorities. With the current Constitutioin setup, its a one rachet where its much easier for Congress to delegate to the executive (1/2 majority, doubtful that a President vetos a grant of power to himself) then to revoke delegation (requiring 2/3 majority over a President’s veto). It would be a meaningful balance to Presidential exercises of power that doesn’t involve the courts.