Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that Trump couldn’t do this unilaterally because there’s no “emergency”? Do the media just uncritically parrot every brain fart this guy emits, still, 11 years on? Come on.
> Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that Trump couldn’t do this unilaterally because there’s no “emergency”?
That was under IEEPA [1]. This is under § 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 [2]. (There is another tariff effort under § 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 winding its way through the courts [3].
We probably need a Tariff Powers Act that consolidates and curtails Presidential power to unilaterally fuck with trade.
Why not 500%? 5000%?
Tacos, anyone?
Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that Trump couldn’t do this unilaterally because there’s no “emergency”? Do the media just uncritically parrot every brain fart this guy emits, still, 11 years on? Come on.
> Didn’t the Supreme Court rule that Trump couldn’t do this unilaterally because there’s no “emergency”?
That was under IEEPA [1]. This is under § 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 [2]. (There is another tariff effort under § 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 winding its way through the courts [3].
We probably need a Tariff Powers Act that consolidates and curtails Presidential power to unilaterally fuck with trade.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Econom...
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1338#:~:text=Prio...
[3] https://libertyjusticecenter.org/cases/burlap-and-barrel-inc...
yep.
If that Congress thingie I read about years ago was active, they could straighten these things out. But it seems that was a mirage.